U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

77–326 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–253

CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY, AND

WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 976

TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION AND FUNDING FOR THE ENHANCEMENT

OF THE ECOSYSTEMS, WATER SUPPLY, AND WATER QUALITY OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JULY 19, 2001

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

BYRON H. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JON KYL, Arizona

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

JEFF BINGAMAN and FRANK H. MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

PATTY BENEKE, Senior Counsel

COLLEEN DEEGAN, Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California ............................................. 14

Cunneen, Jim, President and CEO, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of

Commerce, San Jose, CA ..................................................................................... 59

Davis, Grant, Executive Director, the Bay Institute of San Francisco ............... 65

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota ................................... 35

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California ......................................... 1

Hall, Stephen K., Executive Director, Association of California Water Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 47

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona ............................................................ 4

Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California ................................... 5

Moss, Richard M., General Manager, Friant Waters Users Authority, Lindsay,

CA .......................................................................................................................... 39

Nichols, Mary D., Secretary for Resources, State of California ........................... 27

Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary, Department of the Interior ............................. 20

Pace, Phillip J., Chairman, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA ............................................................................................ 62

Somach, Stuart L., Partner, Somach, Simmons and Dunn, Sacramento, CA .... 52

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., U.S. Representative from California ........................... 12

Wright, Patrick, Director, CALFED, Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento, CA ....... 36

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 73

APPENDIX II

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 81

(1)

CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY,

AND WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT

OF 2001

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein

presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would like to begin this hearing first of all

with the announcement that the chairman of the subcommittee is

Senator Dorgan, and he is at an Appropriations markup, which is

where I should be too, but first things first.

I want to welcome everybody and particularly the three legislators from California, my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer; Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher; and Congressman George Miller. And

we will be taking your testimony in just a couple of minutes.

I am delighted the Secretary of the Interior is here. Welcome,

Madam Secretary. And also the head of the Department of Resources in the State, Mary Nichols, I am delighted that you could

come back for this hearing.

So we will get to you hopefully before too long. But I think it is

very useful that you are here in this first row and listening to this

testimony, because as Mark Twain once said, ‘‘In California, whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting.’’ And it has been that

way ever since.

I have tried to break the cycle of that with this bill that is before

us. And we tried very hard to find common ground and to bring

the very disparate set of stakeholders together.

These are the urban water districts, the agricultural water contractors and users, as well as environmentalists that obviously

have an interest in water.

I believe that the bill I have introduced represents a good compromise. The current version before the committee is the result of

literally dozens of meeting with stakeholders. And it has gone

through a number of drafts.

2

I would also like to mention that I plan on submitting an amendment to my bill at the markup. And I think it improves the legislation.

These amendments are presented after consultation with the

Governor of the State of California, as well as with my colleague,

Barbara Boxer, and knowing of Congressman Miller’s concerns, to

try to bring our bill a little closer to where you are.

The first provision that we will amend addresses the assurance

language that provides a promise that west side’s agricultural contractors will get some benefit from this language. And I think the

language we are evolving better reflects the record of decision.

The second provision that we will change involves the procedure

for instituting an expedited authorization process for three storage

projects. Let me say right up front, this bill essentially preauthorizes $1

billion worth of environmental projects. Most of them are under

$10 million; therefore, they go through.

The scope and nature of many of them that are authorized are

really not known at the present time. Nonetheless, we have a commitment to move, to restore the environmental ecosystem of the

California water system and we intend to honor that promise.

The expedited approval process that we are working on and the

thrust and balance of this bill is that all elements of the bill move

together, so that it is balanced. And that is because of the division

among the stakeholders; so that the urban water users feel that

they are getting substantial advances; the environmentalists feel

they are getting substantial advances. The environmental water account, $50 million a year for four years, begins.

And many of us believe very strongly that what happened in the

Klamath basin is just a prelude to what is going to happen

throughout the rest of the State. It may not happen because an endangered species shuts off a water flow to 1,500 farmers, but it

should open our eyes as to the shortage of water.

Our water system essentially was built when Pat Brown was

governor and we were 16 million people. We are 34 million people

and on our way to becoming 50 million people by 2020. We must

learn from the electricity crisis and get ahead. So I feel very

strongly that balance and moving concurrently is extraordinarily

important.

There are three water storage projects. One is the delta wetlands. One is raising Shasta dam. The other is Los Vaqueros Reservoir, raising it for water quality reasons. And the question is how

to move this rapidly without holding up everything else. And therefore, what we have come up with is a 180-day expedited approval

process.

Senator Boxer was concerned that it not be a preauthorization.

We have accepted that concern. We have tried to work around it,

but with an expedited procedure, whereby it would go through both

houses within the 180 days.

So the bill aims to move the ecosystem restoration, the water

quality improvements and the water storage improvements concurrently.

And I am delighted that Senator Kyl from Arizona is here, because I believe this bill also helps us take pressure off of the ColoVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
3

rado River, if we can do it right. And I know that is a concern of

yours.

For those of you who are not familiar with California water

issues, who may or may not be in the audience, CALFED is a joint

Federal/State program. The State owns one big water project. The

Federal Government owns and operates a second large water

project.

And what we aim to do is bring them together in a concerted

management under CALFED, where decisions can be made and we

could move to do those things that we need to do.

This really began for me in 1993 when a number of agricultural

leaders and others asked if I could please sit down and bring the

Secretary of the Interior in and see if we cannot get some coordination to keep everybody out of court.

And Secretary Norton’s predecessor was good enough to participate. And that was really the beginning of the CALFED project,

which she, of course, is going to inherit. So it has been dozens of

meetings with stakeholders, cities, counties.

I would like to introduce into the record now 59 letters in support of this legislation, from agencies all over the State, from Humboldt County to San Diego County, including the Association of

California Water Agencies, Ag-America, the Alameda District, the

Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Council,

Calaveros, California Sod Producers, city of Sacramento, city of

Milbrae, Contra Costa, Delta Wetlands, East Orange County Water

District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Humboldt Bay Water

District, Kern County, Kings County, Long Beach, Metropolitan

Water District—the largest in the State—the Mojave Water Agency, the North of the River Municipal Water District, Orange County, Placer County, Riverside County, San Diego County Water Authority, San Francisco Bay Area Water Users, San Gabriel Valley

Economic Partnership, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, Santa Clara and on and on and on.

And we have tried to keep all of these agencies, in what has been

a very fluid process, advised as we move along.

Now, here is what the bill does. It authorizes the CALFED program, as agreed to by the State and Federal Government last June.

The CALFED program is estimated to cost between $8 and $12 billion total. This bill authorizes a Federal cost share of about $3 billion. It is limited to that over 7 years.

It authorizes such sums as may be available, but if we were to

have a number, the clear intent is that the Federal share would be

about $3 billion.

The State has already—and I think Ms. Nichols will talk about

this—moved very aggressively in moving their portion of this forward. They passed a bond issue, so we have every reason to believe

that the State is going to produce its share.

Approximately $1 billion of the $3 billion is earmarked for ecosystem restoration. The Act authorizes projects, as I said, that require less than $10 million Federal appropriation, providing that

these have received environmental review and approval as required

by State and Federal law, and have a finding consistent with a

record of decision.

4

It also authorizes the environmental water account, which provides $50 million annually for 4 years to purchase water to enhance fisheries, to protect threatened and endangered species and

to avoid takings issues.

And we hope to create conditions where the State’s water

projects can operate reliably. This would provide an additional

380,000 acre feet per year. Plus during the first year, there would

be an additional 200,000 acre feet on top of the 300,000.

The bill would authorize feasibility studies and reports for the

potential storage projects, particularly the first tranche.

The first tranche are the three I mentioned. The others are San

Joaquin River Storage, San Louis Reservoir Bypass, the Freeport

Regional Project, new ground water storage, South of Delta blending projects, Bay Area blending exchange projects and South Delta

conveyance improvements.

As I mentioned, the expedited review for the three we are talking

about now, we believe, should provide about 950,000 acre feet of

new storage. That is taking water from the wet years and holding

it for the dry years.

The bill authorizes a new ecosystem enhancement program to ensure that the environmental objectives of CALFED are carried out.

It sets up a water supply grant program to ensure that the storage

and conveyance objectives of CALFED are carried out.

So that is essentially, in a nutshell, what this bill does. And I

would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona if he has

a comment, and then I will proceed to our colleagues.

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Senator KYL. Madam Chairman, just a very quick comment to

compliment you for holding this hearing first of all, and also attempting to move this legislation.

It is going to be very difficult and very complex, of course. And

I know you appreciate that. But I think the effort to try to track

as carefully as possible the record of decision, to try to get the parties together and to begin the process, knowing that it will be difficult is a very important one.

I have a lot of questions that, I think, if we can get good answers

to will help to move the bill forward, and I want to pledge to you

that I am going to work very, very closely with you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Senator KYL. My work prior to the time I came to the Congress

involved a lot of reclamation issues, a lot of water issues in the

practice of law.

We have done a lot of these in the State of Arizona. And we have

a big one coming along, so I have some familiarity with the difficulty of moving these projects forward and the difficulty of getting

everybody together. And therefore, I want to help as much as I can

to enable you to move forward with a bill, which meets as many

of the needs as possible. And again, I appreciate your holding the

hearing.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I thank you very much, Senator. I

think you know I have great respect for you. We work easily and

well on other committee efforts and I really look forward to it.

5

I hope we can move this bill, because there are some appropriations that we need to keep. So moving the bill is important. And

I look forward to it.

Now, I would normally go to my colleague, Senator Boxer. Do you

wish to defer to the Congressman?

Senator BOXER. Both colleagues, because they have votes close to

pending, and I think we are okay for awhile, I think.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right.

Senator BOXER. Although this is beeping, so I am not so sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Between the two of you, which one—oh, see,

women always give way.

[Laughter.]

Congresswoman TAUSCHER. Well, he is the senior member.

Congresswoman MILLER. Not the women in our House. I am honored.

[Laughter.]

Congressman TAUSCHER. He is not only my senior, he is my better.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh.

[Laughter.]

Congressman MILLER. I am—oh, now, I am dead.

[Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. Keep going, Ellen. You will get his support

maybe.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Congressman MILLER. Senator Feinstein, let me begin by thanking you and the members of the committee for taking this time to

hear our concerns and to provide this opportunity to testify on the

CALFED process and on your proposed legislation. I deeply appreciate it.

I think that we are all committed to the very strong notion, if

not truism, that CALFED is the best opportunity that we have had

to bring about the kind of changes in the California water scene

that is necessary, to provide the kind of flexibility to future Governors of that State, to address the changing California economy,

which has undergone dramatic changes and, of course, the California growth and population, which has changed so many of the outlooks that we have had on water in our State over the last couple

of decades.

I have been at this the entire 27 years that I have been in the

Congress of the United States. I think I was at it a little bit before

then, when I grew up in a household where many weekends a

year—it is hard for people today to understand that—Clarence

Sawyer and James Boswell and the Delta farmers and others met

in our living room week after week sorting out and allocating water

in the State of California.

I am not sure the Delta always won, but the process went forward. And we all recognized the complexities.

You mentioned the Klamath Basin. It is the CALFED process

and the adherence to it, and the progress that we have made to

date that has kept this system, the largest water system in the NaVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
6

tion, out of the problems and the kinds of dramatic, Draconian

choices that we have seen made in the basin.

And I want to applaud Senator Bingaman for his attention to

this, yours, and members of the committee, and Senator Boxer and

Congresswoman Tauscher.

As you mentioned, your legislation is evolving and we appreciate

the fact that you have kept this in a fluid state, so that we could

offer comments and you could respond and other people could take

a look at it, and to see whether we are right or wrong.

And I think major improvements have been made to this legislation, the changes that you have suggested. And really what I am

left with is a number of questions that I think are very important

in terms of our ultimate success.

All of us from the West, know that water projects thread a very

narrow needle in the Congress of the United States. And we have

got to be together. We cannot be fighting one another.

We almost have to be unanimous in everything to get it through

when you talk Western water, because nobody west of the Mississippi thinks this is—this pertains to them. Then when you talk

California water, that old needle gets a little bit narrower, and that

is the needle that we are trying to thread here and I think we are

all heading in the same direction.

I think that when people understand the kinds of diversity and

parties that were brought together in the CALFED process, the

fact that stakeholders who had only thrown rocks at one another

and only sued one another were forced to stay in a room and to

stay in the process until we came to a near consensus—not a complete, but a near consensus, I think speaks well of our State and

what we have tried to do to reformulate the California system.

One of the first questions I have is really the question of the

South of Delta water assurances. And I understand what you are

trying to do there, and I understand the importance of that with

respect to holding CALFED together, that everybody who is currently a water user wants to make sure that, in fact, their right,

their need, their concerns are addressed and have the full attention

of the process.

And the ROD spoke to increasing deliveries to these contractors

to 65 or 70 percent of their current contract level, but the ROD

does not make that an entitlement. It makes that that should be

our best effort and that is what we should look forward to and we

should do that respecting the economies that that water supports

in terms of our agricultural community.

My concern is really raised on page 15 with subsection three,

which is one of the three things to be done to proceed in carrying

out the intent of the Rod. And I say this as a question. I do not

have a conclusion, and I do not want to suggest that my question—

I just—I think we need to know whether or not this is beyond the

allocation that we would expect in the first part of the environmental water account. And I say that not knowing.

And to make sure that we are not creating an entitlement under

that section, so that water has to go out and be purchased specifically for that purpose because, as we know, the environmental

water account has a number of different draws on it, given what

is going on in our economy and mother nature.

7

And I just raise that question. And I do not know the answer.

And it has been alleged to me in the last 24 hours that it does both

and neither. So I do not know.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can your staff work with ours and see if we

can get that cleared away?

Congressman MILLER. Sure. I raise the question so that it is on

the record, and I hope people in the room can help provide this.

My concern is—and I come at this with a bias because the area

that I represent—I do not want to create a handle which then creates litigation, which is then argued that this is somehow—this

section is a bootstrap to a mandate for water beyond what the ROD

says we will make our best good faith efforts to do. And that is a

concern.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you just clear this up quickly? Are you

talking about line 5, page 15, Environment Water Account Priorities and Operation? Is that the section?

Congressman MILLER. Well, I think the problem is we may be

looking at a different—I am on page 15. I am in section 3, line 3.

‘‘In the’’—I do not want to get into this craziness in a hearing,

but there are three things that must be done implementing that,

‘‘develop environmental water account to protect and restore Delta

fisheries; provide a foundation for regulatory assurances to ensure

the water supply and reliability for Delta exporters; and three, increase deliveries in the manner and the extent prescribed in the

record of decision South of Delta Valley Water project contracts,’’

and on. I do not want to turn into a mandate, because that is not

what the ROD does.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I understand.

Congressman MILLER. Later on, you say ‘‘nothing in this subparagraph shall diminish or affect the rights—diminish or expand

rights.’’ And I appreciate that language and it is important.

My concern is that subsection 3, in and of itself on its face creates that mandate without regard to contract or Delta water accounts. That is to be answered. That is my question. And obviously

we cannot answer that here today.

But I think it is one that must be, because it sets up a dynamic

among water users and rights holders within the State. And you

have already heard from the Friant people on the earlier language

and you have heard from the environmental community, which

have very, very real concerns.

They come from a different direction, but their concerns are quite

real. And so I lay that on the table for discussion. And, again, noting that you have already made changes in the section that I think

are very helpful. And so this is to follow on to that.

The other question is and you are struggling here with something that all of us as members of Congress, whether engaged in

water or not—and that is a frustration with the legislative process

and the timing and the extent it takes to get things done. And obviously the needs of CALFED, the needs of our State do not know

legislative time tables.

We will or will not have a drought. We will or will not have new

people move to our State. We will or will not have new businesses

open and acreage put into agriculture.

8

We need these programs and projects to go forward. My concern

is that as I read the legislation—and I say this not in a

confrontational fashion, but again in a questioning fashion, that

the report, the feasibility report will be done and then it will be offered. And I think my concern is that the question comes about the

ability to amend that. That feasibility could be released and the

Governor of the State could not be happy with the outcomes and

would seek an amendment.

You could seek an amendment. I could seek an amendment. Our

opponents in one fashion or another, wherever they come from,

would seek that. I do not know how you take away from a legislative body its ability to raise a point of order or to seek an amendment.

I can understand how we can limit their time of debate, how we

can schedule it for the floor, how we can say ‘‘It has to be out of

committee in X numbers of days,’’ to expedite that process.

But I do not think that you can tell us on something as complicated and as big and as important as California water and the

projects contained in this legislation that we so desperately need

that we can become a rubber stamp on that; or that the Congress

or the Senate—the House or the Senate would do that.

And so we have to keep the amendment process there. I think

if you can get rid of the filibuster on this bill, if you can force the

House to discharge the bill and get it to the floor and get a vote

on it, that is in keeping with all of the rights of everybody who is

pro or con in this situation. They should not be allowed to simply

delay the consideration or the up or down vote.

And I say that because I think it is a question of assuring success and also making sure that the feasibility study is something

that we can deal with.

In my years on the committee as chairman, as chairman of the

Water Committee and as ranking member of both, I have authorized and we have spent billions of dollars coming back and making

up for mistakes where things were expedited, and political power

plays were made.

And I do not think today any longer the Congress is going to

spend that kind of money to do it. We have got to be able to look

our colleagues in the eye from the West, from our neighboring

States, and from those who are not from the West and say, ‘‘This

is on the level for the taxpayers, for the environment, for the good

of our economy and our State.’’

And that may take some movement. I do not know that the environmental community will be comfortable, and this does not say

whether they have a right or not to take at face value a feasibility

report by Secretary Norton.

Nor would the water users have been comfortable if Secretary

Babbitt said take it up or down on a feasibility report that he

would have written.

That is just the nature of politics, and I do not know that we can

change that. We should not let people just come in and delay and

bog the process down.

We have a House Rules Committee. They make sure that we do

not get bogged down. I cannot address the Senate, but you know

which procedures you have to try to expedite in that case.

9

And finally I make this point on this one. On a project that I

have supported, we tried to get Los Vaqueros to be a larger dam

a number of years ago. We could not find any partners. We wanted

the Federal Government. We wanted East Bay Mud. We wanted

other people to participate.

We went ahead and built it on our own, but that dam, which

may be one of the most important components of this system in

terms of management of the system—not a lot of yield on water— but in terms of management, certainly in a dry year and a critical

dry year, that component is subject to a referendum.

Senator FEINSTEIN. We understand.

Congressman MILLER. And if this process is not on the level, I

do not think I have to be too graphic to describe to people the kind

of campaign that we would be engaged in in Congresswoman

Tauscher’s district and my district, in the service area and the site

of that reservoir.

That reservoir, when it is expanded, will raise a series of issues

that go beyond the yield or the storage capacity or the quality. It

will start to take away habitat. It is in the middle of a habitat conservation area now. It is going to take away recreational opportunities that will have to be amended.

And you can understand the kind of dynamics if those of us who

are elected officials are not able to present that the consideration

of this went through the regular order, so that all of us had a say,

had a chance to amend it and move it on. Not to delay it, not to

filibuster it, but to deal with it, yes or no.

But what we really want is a yes. We want all of this CALFED

process to go forward. And that is really the two questions that I

raise.

And I do not pretend to, again, say what process would work in

the Senate. But in the House, I think we have some built-in protections, because of a Rules Committee, but we can also use some

time lines in terms of discharge of this report to move it on down

the legislative process and get it over to you, or get yours over—

your result over to the House.

I think those are the two critical points. One is about a level

playing field among water users. And the other is about a level

playing field among the greater constituency that is concerned for

a whole reason and different agendas about what goes on in California water.

But I say this as one who was encouraged in the past, and we

never really got there with the kinds of studies necessary on Shasta, who was a supporter of Los Vaqueros initially, and thinks that

the expansion makes a lot of sense. I say that awaiting the feasibility report.

But I think it is an important component of the kind of flexibility

that I have preached about what this system, an integrated system,

a Federal, State water system ought to be able to do to respond to

future needs in our State.

And the third one is the in-Delta thing. I do not know what the

hell is going on there. But—sorry.

[Laughter.]

Congressman MILLER. But we will sort that out. Thank you very

much.

10

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, thank you.

Congressman MILLER. And I, again, want to say that these questions are offered because I think the clarity is important. And I

think our success of what you are trying to do is important.

We do not want to have a process where we end up with people

voting it down. We want to end up with a process where we go forward in CALFED, because there is a lot of winners in this

CALFED process.

And there is a lot of complementary actions, as you have noted,

that have to be done here. And the beneficiaries sometimes are a

long ways away from the project, but the beneficiaries nevertheless

are there in terms of our economy, in terms of our municipal systems and all the rest of it.

You know all that. You do not need to hear that from me. But

thank you very much, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thanks.

Congressman MILLER. And we have a vote, so please let Congressman Tauscher——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. Senator Boxer, do you defer to Congresswoman Tauscher?

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Congresswoman Tauscher, please

proceed.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate

your providing me an opportunity to testify this afternoon about proposals to reauthorize the CALFED process.

Let me begin by stating my belief that the CALFED process remains the best opportunity for all Californians to develop and implement a water program that meets

the diverse future needs of our state. Over the years, when various stakeholders

would threaten to quit the CALFED process, and I have always advised that there

is no other way to proceed without encountering litigation, obstruction and long

delays that jeopardize the future of California. So, we are all here with the same

basic goal.

As many of you know well, I come to this issue with a very long involvement in

water policy over the past 26 years ago. As chairman of the House Committee on

Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on Water and Power, or as senior Democrat on that committee for over a decade, I know the issues and the players. I know

quite a bit about the precision that must go into drafting water legislation, and I

have a lot of experience with people who seize on every vagueness or nuance to file

lawsuits and delay the implementation of important reforms.

It is with that extensive background that I speak today not about the details of

legislation which continues to change. I applaud Senator Bingaman, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer and others who are demonstrating an interest in making modifications to address legitimate concerns about CALFED legislation. This legislation

is evolving; it has changed to reflect many concerns we have raised, and I want to

thank Senator Feinstein for incorporating changes. Some major questions remain,

and I want to continue to work with all interested members to assure that in its

final form, the bill is clear and concise and that it reflects the consensus and integrity of the CALFED process.

I want to speak about principles that must be included in this legislation if it is

to have credibility and, most importantly, if it is to maintain the alliance formed

around CALFED and the Record of Decision last year. California must get its act

together if we expect senators and representatives from other states to spend hundreds of millions, or billions, of federal dollars in our state.

What is important is that we work together to minimize the dissent, and that we

ensure that the legislation we craft serves the best interest of California as a whole.

And we can do that if we abide by certain key principles.

11

There has been much discussion over the ‘‘south of Delta water assurances’’ language in S. 976. The ROD spoke of increasing deliveries to these contractors to 65%

or 70% of their current contract levels. But the ROD did not, and this legislation

must not, alter the water rights of any party in the state. It does not alter the rights

of any CVP contractor beyond those contained in an existing contract. It creates no

right to a fixture contract, or to water or other terms in a fixture contract beyond

those in existing law. After our experience with energy, we certainly need to be sure

we don’t mandate that water be purchased by the state at a high price and re-sold

to contractors at bargain basement rates. To do any of these would upset the entire

CVP contracting process, undercut the water flexibility goals of current law that

serve all current and fixture contractors for water, and jeopardize the state’s role

in establishing water rights.

I note the concerns raised by over 25 environmental organizations to inclusion of

such language, and also the warning from Richard Moss, General Manager of the

Friant Water Users Authority, who recently urged deletion of assurances language

which creates ‘‘legal fodder for those who have a history of using any claimed lack

of clarity in federal law or contracts to bootstrap themselves to an improved water

supply position at the expense of other.’’

As the former chairman and ranking member of the authorizing committee, I

have grave concerns about any procedure that constrains debate or the opportunity

for full review by the committee or the House. We rarely impose such conditions

on legislation, and then it is typically on matter where there are internationally negotiated considerations or careful fiscal balancing like budget resolutions. I am skeptical that a water project in California rises to this level.

But if you decide to include expedited authorization language for Shasta, Los

Vaqueros, and the in-Delta project, it must be cautiously written. The most recent

language for S. 976 that I have seen—dated July 18, 2001—still raises some serious

concerns.

The pre-authorization process anticipates introduction and expeditious consideration of a joint resolution concerning the three Stage 1 projects after completion of

feasibility studies. But this language does not even require that the resolution track

the feasibility study. And what if more than one resolution is offered; who determines which is considered? In the real world of legislation, such questions are fundamental since they determine whether you must defend or alter pending legislation.

Once the legislation moves to the floor of the Senate or House, it is to be considered under tightly regulated rules. But water projects from New Mexico or North

Dakota or Colorado don’t receive such priority. Why California?

This draft bill shuts out the House Rules Committee, cuts off the Parliamentarians, and infringes on the authority of other committees which could not raise points

of order against germaneness even if their jurisdiction is impacted. Such a resolution in the House could waive the Budget Act and allow no point of order? Repeal

the Endangered Species Act? Waive the Clean Water Act? Appropriate funds? I do

not think that is realistic.

While the intent is to expedite projects through this provision, it has been my experience that such efforts more frequently make projects more, not less, controversial. As chairman of the committee and subcommittee, we had to go back and reformulate the Central Arizona Project, the Central Utah Project, the Salton Sea recovery plan, the Garrison Project, and of course, the Central Valley Project itself. Each

was facing bankruptcy, litigation, environmental crisis or political stalemate—sometimes all of them—because someone thought they could bend the system and fast

track the project. Let’s not slip a poison bill into this bill that inadvertently causes

delays we all want to avoid.

More important than my personal opposition is the all-but-certain response of

skeptical local voters. Such a belief would doubtless raise strong opposition to an

expanded Los Vaqueros project among Contra Costa County voters, who, as I have

noted, must vote for any modification of the existing facility. Without such a local

vote in favor of an expanded Los Vaqueros, a major storage feature favored by

CALFED would be lost.

I agree that we need to implement CALFED and promote water savings and efficiency, develop new supplies, and employ technology to expand our water supplies.

Towards that end, I have recently introduced H.R. 2404, ‘‘The California Water

Quality and Reliability Act of 2001’’ which expedites feasibility studies and promotes

groundwater storage and management and recycling—a plan that I believe can generate reliable water supplies, at lower cost and in a shorter time frame than other

proposals.

12

The key for success for this legislation is that Californians work together, realistically and cooperatively, to move CALFED down the road. We are making progress;

we are in better shape today than we were a week ago.

We can have a CALFED that promotes reasonable new water supplies, protects

the environment, and respects taxpayers while also assuring the continued flexibility of the California water program so that we are able to meet the changing demands of a growing state. I look forward to working with members of the delegation

and the Congress to assure that we pass that kind of CALFED legislation this year.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Congresswoman TAUSCHER. Thank you, Senator, for chairing this

meeting. And I want to thank Chairman Dorgan, and ranking

member Smith and Mr. Kyl and Mr. Burns for attending. And I especially want to thank Senator Kyl for his offer of bipartisan support for, what I think, is going to be very important for California.

We have a very important series of votes on the floor. We have

just been called for them, so my statement is available.

I just want to say very quickly that I want to thank you, Senator,

for your leadership. I especially want to thank my colleague, Mr.

Miller, my neighbor just to the north of me, for his decades-long

leadership, and Senator Boxer for her support.

I also want to thank Chairman Calvert for making this process

open and receptive for members with differing perspectives on how

this program should go forward.

I think it is very, very vital that we reauthorize CALFED. And

I think that we have to do it this year and in this Congress. And

it is very important that we do it in a way that is reflective of the

kinds of balance between supply and quality and ecosystem restoration that I think is embedded in your bill.

And I really want to thank you for keeping such an open mind

and bringing so many people together and of constantly moving to

improve this bill, which I think goes a long way to making sure

that we can deal with the kind of growth that we are going to have

in California over the next 30 or 40 years, at the same time that

we take care of the values that we all care about, improving our

fisheries, making sure that we deal with threatened and endangered species, and obviously dealing with the fact that we have got

some of the best farm land in the country.

I represent, as does Mr. Miller, some of the urban users and obviously the Delta is in our backyard—his front yard, my back yard.

Obviously, we are very, very committed to making sure that we

have that ecosystem protected and restored. It is in desperate

shape. It is the largest estuary in the West, and it is something

that I think makes the Bay area what it is.

And obviously we are very much interested in making sure that

the ROD that so many people spent so many years working on——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just stop you, because I hate acronyms back here. Washington functions—for those of you who do

not know, the ROD is record of decision.

Congresswoman TAUSCHER. Record of decision.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Sorry. Go ahead.

Congresswoman TAUSCHER. And that record of decision was hard

fought for many years, with many, many people working very hard,

biting their tongues, staying at the table. And I want to thank you

13

and others for their leadership in making sure that we had an

ROD.

But now that we have one, I believe that S. 976 is comprehensive

and goes a long way to turning the goals of the ROD into realities

for California. And I think that it is important that we continue

this process, that we continue to move forward.

On the assurances issue, the two pieces, I guess, that I really

just want to talk about very quickly were on the issue of assurances. I want to be on the record for saying: For those users south

of the Delta, I am glad that the new version of S. 976 moves away

from guaranteeing water deliveries.

On the issue of this pre-authorization, I know that you have been

working hard with Governor Davis and others on language that

would be expediting and that would improve the opportunity for us

to keep these fragile coalitions together.

I think that this is very tough work and your diligence, I think,

will pay off. But I am here essentially to represent the fact that

we have, I think, many people that want to work together.

I really appreciate what my colleagues have done. I am trying

the best I can to make sure that we have, working with Mr. Calvert, the opportunity to get something done this year. I think if we

do not do it this year, we are going to deeply regret it. And that

will only accrue negatively to California and our opportunities in

the future.

So I want to catch this vote.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Congresswoman TAUSCHER. I appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Tauscher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Madame Chair, Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Smith and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this

afternoon and provide testimony on S. 967, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply,

and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001. A bill with a big name and an equally

big responsibility.

I want to thank you, Senator Feinstein, for your leadership and foresight in

crafting this bill to reauthorize the CALFED program and ensure California will be

able to meet its growing water needs. I also want to thank my colleagues from California, Senator Boxer and Congressman Miller for their hard work on CALFED reauthorization. I would also like to commend Chairman Calvert for being open and

receptive to Members’ with differing perspectives on how to move this program forward.

This week, this Committee and both Chambers of Congress are busy debating legislation to address our nation’s energy needs. This is obviously of great importance

to California and my constituents who have endured rolling blackouts and high energy costs in recent months. Given this Committee’s busy schedule, I am thankful

that it has made time to consider legislation to address California’s water needs.

As California continues to grow, its water needs grow with it. I believe that if we

reauthorize the CALFED program this year, and are balanced and forward-thinking

about our planning, we can avoid making water California’s next crisis. The California Bay-Delta is one of our nation’s largest estuaries and it is the largest estuary

on the West Coast. It supplies drinking water for 22 million Californians, sustains

a multitude of fisheries, including several threatened and endangered species, and

irrigates seven million acres of the world’s most productive farmland.

The CALFED program consists of 18 state and federal agencies who work with

urban, agricultural, and environmental stakeholders to manage this precious resource. As you know, Madame Chair, California water wars are something they

make movies about back home. Managing this complex system is no easy task, and

the smart men and women who labored over the last six years to develop this

14

Record of Decision deserve to be commended. Given the mounting pressures on the

Bay Delta, the goals identified in the ROD are balanced and timely.

The ROD states and I quote, ‘‘With the State’s population expected to grow from

thirty-four million today to fifty-nine million in 2040, the need to conserve, to build

our capacity, and to manage our water system more efficiently is no longer just a

goal, it is a reality.’’

I believe that S. 967 is comprehensive and goes a long way in turning the goals

of the ROD into realities for California. I am glad that Senator Feinstein has made

some changes to her original bill that reflects some of the concerns raised by Governor Davis and the environmental community. I understand that the new version

moves away from ‘‘Preauthorization’’ of construction projects to more of an expedited

review process. I agree with Senator Feinstein that these projects need to be moved

forward in order to meet the timelines established in the ROD.

I also believe that Congress must have adequate oversight over the environmental

and economic reviews that these storage projects require. On the issue of ‘‘Assurances’’ for users South of the Delta, I am glad that the new version of S. 967 moves

away from guaranteeing water deliveries. However, I am still concerned that during

dry years, this section could adversely impact the health of the Delta and my constituents’ water quality, as well as invite more litigation.

I recognize that the agricultural community has legitimate water needs, and I believe that the language in the Record of Decision outlines the objectives to realistically move toward meeting those needs. As a Member representing a growing suburban district with the Bay-Delta in my backyard, I am committed to working to reauthorize CALFED this year. The Record of Decision identifies three potential storage

sites, two of which are located in my District. Los Vaqueros, which offers potential

water quality benefits through storage and blending; and the Delta Wetlands

Project, or In-Delta Storage, which is an innovative storage project with multiple potential benefits. I am hopeful that the feasibility studies on these two projects can

be completed expeditiously.

I am also glad that S. 967 contains language that would authorize a feasibility

study of the Freeport Regional Project, which is a joint effort between Sacramento

and East Bay Municipal Utility District to provide a supplemental supply for both

regions. The project is identified in the ROD as a ‘‘complementary action’’ and would

be an alternate source of supply for families and businesses during a drought.

As I mentioned before, the ROD contains many laudable goals, that if executed

in a balanced and timely way, will restore the Bay-Delta’s ecosystem, enhance water

quality and improve water supply reliability for California businesses and farms. I

applaud Senator Feinstein for her diligence in moving this authorization bill forward. I recognize that there are competing bills and amendments within our own

delegation. I believe that these diverse perspectives will foster a healthy debate.

And I am hopeful, that in the end, we’ll be able to reach agreement to reauthorize

this vital program this year. The health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and our state’s

economy are depending on it.

Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you both very much. We really appreciate your taking the time to come over here.

Congressman MILLER. Thank you. We obviously want to work

with you. If we can answer any questions——

Senator BURNS. We will both save the Nation.

Congressman MILLER. Do what?

Senator BURNS. We will both save the Nation.

Congressman MILLER. We do it every day, every day.

[Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. Moving right along, Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much.

Senator FEINSTEIN. We would be happy to have your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Feinstein and members of the committee.

15

As Congressman Miller and Congresswoman Tauscher leave, I

want to say what a pleasure it is to work, particularly with Congressman Miller, as the senior member of the Resources Committee. And he has been a great advisor to me, all the way back in

my days in the House when we were trying to get this issue resolved, way back in the 1980’s. He was the leader. And I think it

is great that we are all working together.

I want to start by thanking you, Senator Feinstein, for your leadership on this committee to develop a bill that will meet our needs.

You and I and our staffs have worked closely together on this effort, and I hope we could continue to do that, as your bill is still

a work in progress. And I think we need to work closely together.

Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, we teamed up and we

saved the funding you had worked so hard to get in the Appropriations Committee for CALFED. And I think that it is important that

we continue to work together on this.

As you have stated eloquently: In California, as in many parts

of the West, water is our life blood. And we all know there are

many important interests competing for this scarce resource.

For decades, those interests have been fighting. Water allocation

was conducted through endless appeals and lawsuits, something we

want to avoid, divisive ballot initiatives, which we want to avoid.

These battles were painful. As a matter of fact, one of my very,

very first forays into politics, when I was quite a bit younger in my

home county, was over a water ballot initiative. We know that

those debates and those fights prevented us from resolving our

State’s very real water problems.

In 1994, a new State/Federal partnership called CALFED did

promise a better way through a plan to provide reliable clean water

to farms and businesses and millions of Californians, while at the

same time restoring our fish, wildlife and environment. CALFED

was and is committed to identifying a solution that all water users

could share.

I think this consensus approach is crucial, as I know you do. I

must say that I do worry that so far we do not have a bill before

us that reaches that consensus. Although it has tremendous support, it also has some opposition.

And I would ask unanimous consent to enter in the record along

with the support of your bill, 33 groups that have expressed deep

concerns of opposition and support for my amendments.

Some of those groups—I will just name a few—Save The Bay; Sierra Club; League of Conservation Voters; California League of

Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; American

Rivers; Trout Unlimited; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen;

League of Women Voters of California; Clean Water Action. And I

could go on, but in the interest of time, I will just add California

Sports Fishing Protection Alliance; Sacramento River Preservation.

But there are a number of other groups.

However, I think we can work together and bring everyone on

board. And that is what my goal really is.

What I would like to do today is first say that there is much in

the bill that I really, really like. As we have worked together and

you have taken many of my suggestions—not all, but some. And I

appreciate that very much.

16

But because we have a time constraint, know that I support a

lot of the bill. I am just going to focus on a couple of areas with

which I have a disagreement and hope that as we move together,

we can perhaps be able to agree.

So let me say that the two amendments that I actually did submit, I believe still are necessary. I have seen the latest version of

your bill late last night. So my comments are directed to that version, knowing that you are still going to work on it.

I think a lot of what I say mirrors Congressman Miller, but I will

not say it in exactly the same way, and I will not be as colorful,

but I will just get to where I think he is right.

Well, the first concern is a provision that many do believe would

confer a special guarantee of water rights to one water district.

And Congressman Miller said he was not sure that it did.

Attorneys that have spoken to me from the Natural Resources

Defense Council and others say that even in the new version, you

could say that the South of Deltas water users are getting special

rights.

I appreciate the fact that you took some of the language I had

in the preamble of the legislation. That is where I think this ought

to go, the mention of this west lands issue should go in the preamble.

I think—we have discussed that. We have a disagreement. I

think if it went there, it would be fine. It would clear this matter

up, but this is your choice.

I think at best that because it is in the main body of the law it

creates ambiguity and I worry also, as George Miller does, that it

would present a toehold for litigation.

I believe the bill’s water supply assurance language should be

eliminated entirely or, in the amendment as I introduced, move it

to the findings and it could be in no way interpreted to confer special rights.

We have some letters that support that approach, which I ask

unanimous consent to place in the record at this time.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Those letters will be entered in the record.

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Thank you very, very much. The second issue is

very near and dear to my heart. We have talked about it a lot, and

staff to staff have talked about it a lot. And it involves the method

of authorizing the three water storage projects, which may turn out

to be just uncontroversial and breeze right through.

I am pleased that the version of S. 976 that I saw yesterday does

not authorize these projects prior to the completion of feasibility

studies as the original bill did, so thank you for making that

change.

However, the new version of the bill expedites approval of these

projects in a way that eliminates any Senator’s right to modify or

improve them, as Congressman Miller said. It also fails to require

a hearing of this committee or even a vote of this committee. I

would feel very strongly that at least a hearing in this committee

would be very, very important.

Did you respond to that point?

17

Senator FEINSTEIN. I believe the latest draft provides for a vote

both in the committees and on the floor.

Senator BOXER. Okay. Because the one we saw did not require

a vote in the committee. It just said the committee had so many

days to consider it.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, we are happy to clarify that.

Senator BOXER. And then if there is—— Senator FEINSTEIN. The intent is to have a vote.

Senator BOXER. Excellent. That would be great. Excellent.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Senator BOXER. I think that is a big help because if there is a

hearing or a meeting, then at least we can take a look at these

projects. That would be a tremendous step forward.

On the question of amending on the floor of the Senate, I want

to tell you why I feel so strongly about this. As a member of the

House in 1992, I was able to amend the Corps of Engineers’ report—I just want to make this point, because it is so personal to

me.

I was able to amend the Corps of Engineers’ report that recommended Auburn Dam—this was in 1992—so that instead, it authorized better flood control operation at Folsum, so that we were

able to amend it and move it and change it.

Under the latest draft of the bill that I saw, I would be unable

to do that. You would not be able to do that. No member would be

able to change it. And I think that a take-it-or-leave-it package

from Secretary Norton now, or whoever in the future years after

we are long gone might be, I think that is not a good thing for Senators to give up their right.

You have that normal, if you will, right to offer amendments, review and change. As a matter of fact I would go further. I think

it would set a dangerous precedent that could be applied to environmentally harmful or, say, budget busting projects around the

country. So I really like the idea of keeping our ability to amend,

and I think that is important.

My colleagues, I do happen to believe that normal congressional

process works. For example, since 1996, 21 California water

projects have been authorized in the Water Resources Development

Act through the normal congressional process, and I ask consent to

place the names of these projects into the record.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Without objection.

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator.

I think the same could be done for these projects. I do not fear

getting these projects authorized. I think these are going to be

good. I think we team up. We go to Senator Bingaman, Senator

Kyl, Senator Burns. I think we could do it, without short-circuiting

the normal process.

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a number of letters that deal with this issue and also an editorial that appeared

today in the Sacramento Bee.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Without objection.

Senator BOXER. And I would say that one of these is from Taxpayers for Common Sense, which supports my amendment on this.

And I think it lays out why they do not think we should short circuit the process.

18

And the Sacramento Bee says, ‘‘Tipping the scales now would be

wrong. Each reservoir project deserves to be judged on the merits,

how much it costs; how much water it provides; how much flexibility it gives the managers of the State’s interconnected plumbing

system; how it affects the environment; and who pays for it. The

projects under study by CALFED are worthy of exploration, but it

is inappropriate to judge them before all the facts are in.’’ So I think that if we take the normal process, then I agree with

George Miller, selling these projects to all of these groups that are

concerned, to our constituencies that may have to vote to them are

important. The last point I would make, Madam Chair, in the last

version we saw—and we have discussed this with your staff; they

say it was a mistake—but I just want to put it on the record to

make sure. It appears as if all the projects in phase one of the

record of decision would be automatically authorized. In your original version, you said only those under $10 million. Now, that is

gone. So except for these projects—— Senator FEINSTEIN. The mistake was leg counsel left off the $10

million.

Senator BOXER. Okay. Okay. Then I am greatly relieved.

Senator FEINSTEIN. The $10 million is in there, which is really

the bulk of the environmental projects which interestingly enough

are all preauthorized.

Senator BOXER. Yes. Well, we——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Without having to look at them or evaluate

them.

Senator BOXER. Well, if I just might say if you look at the history

of our State, as you well know, it is the dam projects that—and I

say that not as a curse word.

[Laughter.]

Senator BOXER. It is these supply projects that people do have

more concern about.

Well, I think, Madam Chair, I hope we can come together. I

mean, I say that from the bottom of my heart. We have many options. We can work together on this bill, which I hope we will and

because I think it is an omnibus bill, which I think is good.

And if we can agree, we will resolve many issues; or we can do

something in—we can take a very simple non-controversial reauthorization bill, if we have to.

Senator FEINSTEIN. But we——

Senator BOXER. But I prefer to have our problems worked out.

Did you want to——

Senator FEINSTEIN. No. I was just going to respond. See, I tried

very hard with all of the groups for years to get consensus.

Senator BOXER. Yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I am of the view, very staunchly, that

we cannot solve our water problems without additional storage.

Now, Congressman Miller called it a dam. I do not call it a dam.

Senator BOXER. Yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I call it a reservoir. I believe very firmly that

we have to be able to take water from the wet years, recharge our

aquifers, store it, keep it for the dry years.

Now, I am aware of the fact after all of this that there is going

to be objection no matter what, Madam Secretary, to any storage

19

project. Now, it is not only dams; it is storage projects; that some

people think this is a way to control population.

I do not agree with that. I do not think you can control population. I mean, we are going to be 50 million people in 20 years.

I say: Let us get our State ready to be able to handle—handle the

problems that are—that are coming with increase in population, increase in high-tech, which takes high quality water, providing waters for farmers, which certainly it is the biggest ag State in the

Nation. And we cannot do it without storage.

That is where I am. I campaigned on it. I won a campaign on

it. I am going to keep my word to the people, and I am going to

fight this thing out.

If we can agree on an expedited approval, I do not have a problem with that, as long as we move both elements of this whole

thing together. But I am not going to find that we put $1 billion

into one thing, and the area that would give us the ability to go

through those dry years is not touched.

Senator BOXER. Well, I do not disagree with anything you said.

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is kind of where I am.

Senator BOXER. I would just say I am a little more—I feel a little

more hopeful, because I think that the CALFED process did bring

people together. And the record of decision does try to deal with

both the supply of the water, the new projects, plus environmental

restoration, water for the farmers, for the urban. I think all that—

I feel more positive about that now.

We both ran winning campaigns. One of my platforms was keeping all the people together. I mean, that is what I want to do. I

want to keep this consensus together.

I firmly believe that the amendments I have brought to you—this

is my belief, and you do not have to agree, and we will discuss it,

but I think that those amendments would, in fact, bring more consensus, because I think by skirting the normal process, which is a

huge decision for this committee to make if they want to do a special process, I think it creates some problems out there with a lot

of people who are business people in the fisheries industry and

elsewhere.

So let me close this way: I could not agree more that we have

to increase water for the entire State. And you know, the CALFED

does not even deal with the entire State, per se. And I am working

with Representative Farr on a bill called CalAqua that will provide

hundreds of thousands of acre feet—actually more acre feet than

these three projects, not as much so far in our bill as the entire

authorization would eventually bring, but that would bring these

hundreds of thousands of acre feet through methods such as

ground water, recharged water efficiency, water recycling that we

are—Sam Farr and I are very excited about working on. And I am

very anxious to show you the bill when it is ready for introduction.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify. You and I

have great respect for each other. And we do not always agree on

every little thing, but we agree on the end goal.

This is an issue. You and I talked, and we said we have a crisis

in California with electricity. We do not want a crisis with water.

You do not want it. I do not want it. And I am looking at a way

to make sure we can get projects built and not have lawsuits and

20

not have delaying tactics, and not have our colleagues worry about

new precedents for California that we do not have elsewhere.

I am glad that your bill is still open to new ideas and we will

stay close to it, and work with you.

And, again, I thank you for your leadership on this committee.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Senator BOXER. All right.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Do you have any questions, Senator, or we will move onto the

next panel. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Thank you.

[Pause.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. Secretary Norton and Secretary Nichols, if

you would come forward please.

[Pause.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. Madam Secretary, I would just like to welcome you, and I really thank you so much for sitting through the

prior testimony. I really think it is important that you heard all aspects of this.

And I want to thank you also for putting that $20 million again

into the budget. We really appreciate the support of the administration on this. And so if we may, we will begin with you and then

go to Secretary Nichols.

STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary NORTON. All right. Thank you very much, Madam

Chairman. I certainly do appreciate the opportunity to hear today’s

discussions so far and to provide the Department’s comments on S.

976.

I ask permission to submit my full remarks for the record and

to summarize the Department’s position here.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So ordered.

Secretary NORTON. S. 976 would authorize funding through the

Department of the Interior as well as governance and management

authorities for the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta program, a comprehensive, balanced and timely water management

and environmental restoration program.

The Bay-Delta is an area of critical environmental importance as

well as the hub of the State’s water supply system, providing

drinking water for more than 22 million Californians, important

habitat for over 750 plant and animal species, irrigation water for

most of the State’s $27 billion agricultural sector, and provides

water that is essential to the manufacturing and commercial sectors of the State.

The administration supports CALFED’s goals of increasing water

yield, protecting the environment, improving water system and

supply reliability, water quality, and providing watershed management, water transfers and levee protection.

As this committee can well appreciate, our new administration

faced a substantial number of major resources issues of high priority. In the area of water, virtually every Western State has issues

of concern and controversy demanding our attention.

21

We just had two new officials, who took office this week, the day

before yesterday. And that is the Assistant Secretary for Water and

Science, Bennett Raley, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of

Reclamation, John Keys. And they, of course, will be playing a very

key role in the decisions that are made here.

In addition, the White House yesterday announced two additional officials who will be involved when they are confirmed. And

that is Craig Manson for Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and

Parks, who is from California; as well as Steve Williams for Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In summary, we have two who

have not yet been confirmed; and two who are brand new to their

positions.

The new ones have already offered great insights to us in their

couple of days on the job. And we look forward to their insight, as

we study the projects further.

On the Columbia River, the Colorado River and in the Central

Valley of California, among others, we are beginning our examination of multi-year, multi-million dollar planning and negotiating efforts.

On all of the matters before us, one conclusion is universally applicable: We will continue to work towards solutions, and we will

make decisions that reflect the President’s commitment to the balanced and sensible resolution of resource issues affecting our Nation.

Before I get into the specifics of the Department’s position on

CALFED, let me describe my own perspective on water issues. As

attorney general for the State of Colorado, I came to understand

that water issues need to be planned decades into the future and

not just a few years.

Well, California is obviously a fast growing State, as you mentioned in your remarks. Its population continues to expand rapidly,

especially in water scarce areas like southern California. With

more people comes the demand for more water.

That is why I was pleased when I first talked with you, Senator

Feinstein, about CALFED, to learn about your effort to grapple

with California’s long-term agricultural, municipal and environmental water needs. I greatly respect your leadership on this subject. And I am very pleased by the process that has brought together so many people to discuss these issues.

More recently, my Department has experienced the problems

that arise when there is insufficient water to meet all needs. In the

Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, we have seen the tragic

effect on farm families when there is not enough water for both agricultural and environment water needs. We are working now to

find solutions for the future of the Klamath area.

Throughout the West, we need to plan ahead to balance the competing demands for water. Through long-term planning, it is possible to create mechanisms that allow better, more fine-tuned

water management. This allows scarce water resources to be

stretched to meet the needs of fish, wildlife, natural ecosystems,

agriculture and people.

I was pleased to hear that CALFED brought all of the affected

interests to the table to hammer out compromises. This is clearly

22

the process that we must pursue in order to balance water use and

storage, with water for ecosystem maintenance.

As part of my first trip to California as Secretary, I was pleased

to have the opportunity to fly over the Central Valley and to look

closely at the many projects that are a part of the California water

system, and to see how interconnected those things are. This is a

very important issue, and I really wanted to learn more about it.

The Department of the Interior supports the comprehensive and

integrated nature of the proposed actions and the commitment to

a credible science program to support the CALFED decision making process. The manner in which Federal and State administrations have worked is a model for solutions to resource management

problems.

Clearly, significant progress has been made in the dedication of

State and Federal monies for ecosystem improvements in the Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay.

On the Federal side, Congress has already appropriated nearly $500 million for CALFED-related efforts, California Central Valley

Improvement Act efforts, and CALFED-type initiatives.

Obviously, outstanding issues still need resolution. And we are

committed to finding those solutions with this committee, with

Congress, with Governor Davis, and with the affected stakeholders.

S. 976 is an important step forward. We support the purposes

and many of the provisions of the bill. However, we still have a

number of concerns with the bill as written, and we believe some

modifications are needed.

We must fulfill our obligation to taxpayers and scrutinize plans

to make sure they are cost-effective. And we wish to stress the importance of several of the measures and to work with you on making appropriate changes.

The history of the settlement of California and the ensuing development of its water resources is full of political and legal battles.

Although agreement on water management may not be immediate,

the CALFED program is a step in reaching a common vision.

CALFED represents a new approach to an old problem. By combining the interests of State and Federal agencies with rural regulatory—with regulatory power over the Bay-Delta with those of

urban, environmental and agricultural users, the CALFED program is moving California toward more equitable and efficient

water and ecosystem management.

Continued implementation of CALFED offers the opportunity for

a long-term solution to the critical problems confronting the BayDelta. The Department is aware of the importance of meeting its

environmental commitments and the importance to water users of

adequate water supply reliability. For these reasons, the Department will continue to work through the CALFED process to improve the environment and increase the system’s water management flexibility.

We believe that the bill attempts to offer a balanced approach toward implementing the ROD commitments and would allow the

Federal Government sufficient authority to continue to participate

in the CALFED program.

We look forward to working with the committee and others in

Congress to address this administration’s concerns. Thank you.

23

[The prepared statement of Secretary Norton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee to provide the Department’s testimony on S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.

S. 976 would authorize funding through the Secretary of the Interior, as well as

governance and management authorities, for the implementation of a comprehensive, balanced, and timely water management and environmental restoration program in California commonly referred to as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, as reflected in the Federal Record of Decision (ROD) issued August 28, 2000. The purpose of the program is to increase water yield and environmental benefits, as well

as improved water system reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, watershed

management, water transfers, and levee protection.

As the Committee can imagine, our new Administration faced a substantial number of major resource issues of high priority upon assuming office. In the area of

water, virtually every western state has issues of concern and controversy demanding our attention. With the confirmation of Assistant Secretary for Water and

Science Bennett Raley and Commissioner of Reclamation John Keys we are able to

begin dealing substantively with many of the issues before us. We await the nomination and confirmation of an Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

and a Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service to further assist interagency efforts.

On the Columbia River, the Colorado River and in the Central Valley of California, among others, we are beginning our examination of the results of multi-year,

multi-million dollar planning and negotiation efforts. We are looking not only at the

results of these enormous work efforts but also at the process used, both internal

and external, and the information that was relied upon to make decisions. In addition we are examining the data which provided insight on the biological and socioeconomic consequences of these major resource initiatives.

On all of the matters before us, one conclusion is uniformly applicable: we will

continue to work toward solutions and we will make decisions that reflect the President’s commitment to the balanced and sensible resolution of resource issues across

our Nation.

In the case of CALFED, we find the comprehensive and integrated nature of actions proposed and the commitment to the development of a credible science program in support of the decision making process are all laudable. The manner in

which federal and state administrations have worked may be considered a model for

solutions to resource management problems. Likewise, we feel that we can secure

similar success in achieving the goals of CALFED in the context of our responsibilities in all western states.

Clearly, significant progress has been made in the dedication of state and federal

monies for ecosystem improvements in the watersheds that constitute the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay. On the Federal side, Congress has appropriated nearly $500 million for CALFED related efforts, for Central

Valley Project Improvement Act and CALFED initiatives focused on improving the

aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the CALFED solution area.

A Record of Decision is in place that captures years of planning on all program

elements of ecosystem restoration, levee system integrity and improvement, water

supply and reliability improvements, water quality improvement, improved water

use and efficiency, improvements to the upper watersheds, water transfers, storage,

and conveyance.

Congress needs to authorize the CALFED program so we can proceed with balanced progress on all resource fronts. The Department also recognizes that outstanding issues are still in need of resolution and we are committed to finding those

solutions expeditiously and in concert with this Committee, with the Congress, the

administration of Governor Davis and the stakeholders who have been so actively

and constructively involved.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Committee for your obvious

commitment to making significant progress with the CALFED program. I also appreciate the consistent concerns demonstrated by this Committee that progress be

made and for your work efforts in developing the bill being considered today. Your

continued willingness to work with the Department and the Administration on this

matter is of real and continuing importance to us.

S. 976 is an important step forward. Clearly, additional authorizing legislation is

required to proceed with the complete program. We support the purposes and many

of the provisions of the bill. However, we also have a number of concerns with the

24

bill as written, and we believe some modifications are necessary. We would like to

continue working with the Committee to achieve a bill we can fully support and

which will implement the CALFED program consistent with the ROD and agreements reached in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994 and the CALFED framework agreement. We note that S. 976, like other CALFED legislation before the Congress,

would be quite expensive.

The results of the CALFED planning process reflect an attempt to balance competing needs and interests. The CALFED planning process brought together agricultural, urban, environmental and business stakeholders with the state and federal

agencies in an effort to build agreements on the approaches to managing California’s complex water and natural resource issues. We recognize that solutions to any

set of problems as large and interconnected as those facing California will be complex. However, all interests must respect the needs and concerns of others. The

CALFED ROD attempts to recognize the core interests of all the parties and build

a solution that reduces the conflicts in the existing and long-established system and

to balance competing interests for comprehensive progress. In addition, consideration should be given to analysis of impacts of the ROD on tribal trust assets, as

discussed in the ROD. With the support of Congress and the State of California,

CALFED can lead the way in a collaborative process that includes extensive participation of all stakeholders to provide many long-term solutions to California’s water

management and infrastructure improvement needs.

The ‘‘Fed’’ side of the CALFED Program demonstrates a cooperative planning and

coordination effort among ten Federal agencies, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land Management, within the Department of the Interior, as well as the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

and Western Area Power Administration.

CALFED HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a response to the water management and ecosystem problems that came so clearly into focus in the drought of 1987 to 1992 experienced within the Bay-Delta system. Furthermore, the historic and ongoing conflicts between water management for supply and fishery protection give rise to the

urgency of the CALFED program. The waters of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is the largest estuary in

the West Coast, and discharges into the San Francisco Bay and to the Pacific Ocean.

The Bay-Delta is a maze of waterways and channels that carry over 40 percent of

the State’s total runoff to the Bay and provides drinking water for more than 22

million Californians, important habitat for over 750 plant and animal species, irrigation water for most of the $27 billion agricultural sector, and water essential to

the manufacturing and commercial sectors of the State. Over the past decades, California has witnessed declines in water quality, fish, wildlife and associated habitat,

and the reliability of water supplies. The goals of CALFED, which the Administration fully support, are to reverse all these trends.

In December 1994, the State and Federal governments signed the Bay-Delta Accord, which signaled a new approach to managing the Delta and finding solutions

to longstanding problems in California. In 1995, CALFED was initiated as a cooperative, interagency effort to reduce conflicts in the Bay-Delta, modernize water management and infrastructure, and to make investments aimed at reducing stressors

for species and improving the habitat. The CALFED Program has been envisioned

as a three-phase process:

• Phase I objectives were to identify and define the problems confronting the BayDelta System and develop a mission statement, program objectives, and alternative actions for further study. During Phase I CALFED concluded that each

program alternative would include a significant set of program actions which

were grouped into elements to address problems associated with the ecosystem

and water management infrastructure.

• Phase II objectives were to develop a preferred program alternative, conduct a

comprehensive programmatic environmental review process, and develop an implementation plan focusing on the first 7 years (Stage 1 of implementation).

Phase II objectives were achieved through issuance of the Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (IS/AIR) in

July 2000 and a Record of Decision signed on August 28, 2000.

• CALFED is currently in Phase III, a long-term process implementing specific

actions to achieve the goals of the CALFED program. Phase III objectives are

to implement the plan selected in the IS/AIR over the next 25 to 30 years. Stage

25

1 of implementation, for the first 7 years, is underway. Site-specific, detailed environmental review and feasibility level analysis will occur during Stage 1 prior

to implementation of each proposed action.

CALFED PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In the past several years substantial progress has been made on a number of complex water and natural resource issues through the combined efforts of the public

and state and federal agencies working together as CALFED. The greatest accomplishment of the CALFED effort so far is bringing all the State and Federal agencies together to produce the CALFED Record of Decision, signed August 28, 2000,

which documents the comprehensive plan for improving California’s water supply

and water quality, as well as restoring ecological health in the Bay Delta. This Committee has received copies of the most recent annual report of accomplishments

which details progress in many CALFED program areas. We particularly would like

to bring your attention to the many creative approaches to addressing historic areas

of conflict such as the Environmental Water. Account.

Also of interest is the CALFED Science Program. We expect this program to provide peer review of the science and information underlying all elements of the

CALFED program from adaptive management, to ecosystem improvement projects,

to project operations and beyond, we expect CALFED to be supported by a strong

and credible science program.

Public workshops have been and are being undertaken by the program on scientific components of public controversies and are clarifying the state of scientific

knowledge, thereby reducing the level of controversy. In the near term, these workshops include issues associated with Delta Cross channel operations, effectiveness

of the Environmental Water Account for salmon and Delta smelt, salinity effects of

levee breaches, and the use of scientific adaptive management. Additional workshops will be undertaken as topics are identified.

CALFED FUNDING

From FY 1998 to FY 2000, Congress appropriated $190 million for the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program and an additional $30 million for other program

elements, including projects to improve water supply reliability. These funds were

provided through an account in the Bureau of Reclamation budget, but funding for

specific projects or programs has been transferred to participating Federal agencies

based on plans developed by CALFED. As noted above, CALFED agencies have used

these and other funds to screen water diversions for the benefit of fish and farmers,

restore degraded habitat, establish an environmental water program, develop conjunctive use projects and develop a state and federal water operations plan. No

funds were provided for this account in FY 2001, largely because the appropriations

committees deferred to the authorizing committees to review the Program and develop any needed legislation.

The ROD outlines a partnership of State, Federal, and private funding, and esti- mated that a total of $8.7 billion from state, federal, and private sources would be

needed for the Program’s implementation. According to Governor Davis, the State

is moving forward to finance implement actions called for in the ROD. In order to

support the Federal side of this unique partnership, it is important that appropriate

legislation be enacted to authorize Federal Government participation as contemplated by the ROD.

BENEFITS OF S. 976

The Bay Delta is the hub of the State’s water supply system and an area of unsurpassed ecological importance. Single-purpose efforts to solve problems in the past

have failed to adequately address the comprehensive nature of the Bay-Delta resources and problems and the conflicts between supply and demand. S. 976 would

provide authorization for continued Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program and to meet Record of Decision commitments. As such, the Administration

supports many elements of this bill, recognizing that some modifying language may

be needed.

In particular we are supportive of three primary principles outlined in the bill.

Balanced Approach—The authorizing language meets the CALFED principle of

comprehensive planning by outlining and providing authority to carry out a water

supply plan to promote the ecological health and improve water management in the

Bay Delta.

Measurable Goals and Objectives—The legislation would provide for developing

measurable goals and objectives for implementing and documenting ‘‘significant’’

progress in achieving the ROD’s program elements and the proposed ecosystem enVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
26

hancement and water supply program actions. Further, the legislation calls for utilizing credible and objective scientific review and basing decisions on the ‘‘best available, independently peer-reviewed information.’’ Governance, Local Coordination, and Public Involvement—The legislation affirms

that the participating Federal agencies would help operate the Bay-Delta Program

through a permanent governance structure that encourages local and regional partnerships in implementing the Program. The legislation also specifies that State

area-of-origin rights would be preserved. Further, the legislation recognizes the need

for participating Federal agencies to cooperate with state, local, and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations and the public to obtain input on program

implementation planning, design, technical assistance, ecosystem restoration, and

peer review of science efforts.

CONCERNS WITH S. 976

Despite the progress that has been accomplished through the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program, the Administration has some significant concerns relative to the legislation before the Subcommittee today. In addition to the major concerns noted below,

we would like to work with the Committee to address technical and other changes

as it considers this legislation.

Cost Sharing—One of the central components of the ROD is the notion of ‘‘beneficiary pays,’’ whereby users who benefit from investments in the infrastructure

should pay for those benefits. The ROD contemplated the Federal Government, the

State, and project beneficiaries each sharing roughly one-third of the costs of implementation. S. 976 generally establishes a maximum Federal cost-share of 50% for

each project or activity, but does not otherwise indicate how the cost-share should

be determined. We do not object to the 50% ceiling, however, we believe that the

cost-sharing should otherwise be consistent with current law or policies. Depending

on the project purpose, under current law local sponsors are required to provide up

to 100 percent of a project’s cost (e.g., for costs allocated to municipal and industrial

water supply projects). We wish to stress the importance of clarifying and integrating cost-sharing measures into the program. We would like to clarify that assignment of operation and maintenance costs will be consistent with general policies.

Project Authorizations—We are also concerned about provisions of the bill that

seem to authorize construction of projects before they have completed the normal

Administration review of economic and environmental feasibility. Some language

also circumvents Congressional oversight of individual projects. Consistent with

longstanding policies, we believe that authorization for construction should be provided only after the Administration and Congress have completed a full and favorable review of project economics and environmental feasibility.

Authorization of Appropriations—Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the legislation state that

appropriations are authorized ‘‘. . . in such sums as are necessary . . .’’ to carry

out the actions authorized by the particular section. This appears to imply that

there is unlimited funding authority for implementing the CALFED Program. Further, it is not clear whether all appropriations will be coming through the Department of the Interior, or whether the concept of a cross-cut budget will be employed

and appropriations will be made directly to the participating Federal agencies

which, in some instances, would lead to greater efficiency.

Reporting and Oversight—In general, the reporting and oversight requirements

are unclear; it is not apparent which agency is specifically responsible for the compilation of data for submission to Congress. The ROD states that the CALFED staff

would be responsible for associated program reporting requirements, however the

legislation implies that this would be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior.

CONCLUSION

The history of the settlement of California and the ensuing development of its

water resources is replete with political and legal battles. Although agreement on

water management may not be immediately achievable, the CALFED Program is a

step in reaching a common vision of actions needed for progress. CALFED represents a new approach to an old problem by combining the interests of state and

federal agencies with regulatory power over the Bay Delta together with urban, environmental, and agricultural users, who each have a vested interest in the maintenance and improvement of the Bay-Delta. The CALFED Program has shown water

managers, policy makers and the public how to move California toward more equitable and efficient water and ecosystem management. Continued implementation of

the CALFED plan offers the opportunity for a long-term solution to the critical problems confronting the Bay-Delta. Specifically, the Department will continue to operVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
27

ate the Central Valley Project in accordance with the provisions of the State’s Water

Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable statutes. The Department is aware of the importance

of meeting its environmental commitments, and the importance to the water users

of adequate water supply reliability. For these reasons, the Department will continue to work through the CALFED process to improve the environment, and increase the system’s water management flexibility.

We believe that the bill attempts to offer a balanced approach toward implementing the ROD commitments and would allow the Federal government sufficient authority to continue to participate in the CALFED program. We look forward to

working with the Committee and others in Congress to address the Administration’s concerns. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the Committee

and others for continuing to work with the Department to address the significant

water and environmental issues facing the West.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Secretary Norton.

Before I move to Secretary Nichols, we really appreciate your

comments. I know you have staffing problems. Now, that they are

getting solved and you got people on board, I think that is great.

When do you think you would be able to provide us with some

specifics in terms of what you would advise vis-a`-vis changes or

amendments?

Secretary NORTON. We will work with you to try to provide that

information as we are able to reach decisions on particular points

that we would like to offer you. We will certainly work with you

as quickly as possible.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Because of the appropriation situation, we

really need to move this bill as soon as possible.

Secretary NORTON. All right. Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, appreciate it.

Secretary Nichols, thank you again for coming so far and appreciate hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR

RESOURCES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Secretary NICHOLS. Thank you, Senator. You also have our written testimony and, if I may, I will just submit that for the record

and——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Without objection.

Secretary NICHOLS. Great.

Let me just add a couple of comments, and then I know you are

going to want to ask some questions of me and Secretary Norton.

First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am by the support

that we have received to date, knowing first-hand the difficulties

of getting a new administration going and getting staffing. I appreciate very much the support that we have had from the Department of the Interior in moving the CALFED program forward to

date.

I have to say a word about consensus, as I wish to embrace not

only your bill, Senator, and the process that you have been so ably

steering here, but also my other Senator stands squarely with both

of you in trying to achieve consensus on legislation.

CALFED is often referred to as a consensus process. The fact is

we went 6 years without really achieving a consensus until finally

there were some deadlines facing us. And a small group of people

who you helped to convene and to basically push and prod and cajole into achieving a final result said, ‘‘This is going to be the reVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
28

sult,’’ and then went back to all the various stakeholders and said,

‘‘We need your support on this.’’ And we negotiated and we worked

hard with them. And we achieved a result in the record of decision,

which I believe is a consensus.

But it never would have happened if we had just waited for people to miraculously achieve that degree of consensus on their own.

There has to be leadership. And your leadership in moving forward

with this bill is very much appreciated.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Secretary NICHOLS. We want to associate ourselves with your efforts and also to say that we really appreciate the flexibility that

you have shown and have indicated your willingness to show in

making sure that you do bring all the parties along with you as you

move forward.

It is extremely important for California that we get this program

reauthorized this year and also get the Federal funding that is

needed to make all of these very ambitious programs for solving

California’s environmental and water supply problems work.

Let me just say a word about how we approach some of the

issues about the questions that have been raised about the legislation, specifically the language about assurances and the language

about the expedited process. And really it arises from the same

philosophical approach.

When I was appointed to my position over 2 years ago by Governor Davis, he made it very clear to me that in dealing with California water issues, it was going to be absolutely essential that we

keep all the stakeholders at the table in a situation where everyone

felt a great deal of lack of confidence and lack of trust.

We have a situation where we have very strong laws that mandate that we achieve improvements in our ecosystem. We may not

have done it as well as we should or as quickly as we should. We

certainly need better money—we need more money and better

science and so forth.

But in the area of assuring water supplies to our cities and to

our farmers, we do not have a similar legal mandate. We do not

believe that your bill creates a new legal mandate, but we do believe that it goes in the direction that the ROD tried to go of mandating the efforts of the agencies that be sincerely and seriously

put behind those measures that we all agree are needed, if we are

going to give a degree of assurance.

That is the line that we have tried to walk. I know it is the line

that you have been trying to walk. If the language does not make

everybody sufficiently comfortable, you know, we are willing to

work with you to improve it. But that is what I believe you have

been trying to achieve.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right.

Secretary NICHOLS. And it is very much what the Governor

wants to see happen.

Secondly, with respect to the process on storage projects in particular, we named those three projects that you have identified in

your bill as being projects that we thought had a high degree of

likelihood of being able to survive very stringent environmental

and economic reviews.

29

We did not mandate the outcome. We said we will do the studies,

and we put ourselves on a very aggressive time track to try to get

those done.

I want to be clear, and I know you have been clear, that we

never intended to short circuit any of that process whatsoever getting to a recommendation. And we agreed that we would submit

those to the Congress then for authorization.

We understand that you have been grappling with the process to

then expedite that authorization and to be able to get funding. We

do not pretend to have the expertise in how the congressional process works that you have or your staffs have.

But if there is anything that we can do to assist you in that effort, we would like to do that. And other than that, I would just

like to say thanks again for holding this hearing and for helping

to move the process forward.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Nichols follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for convening today’s hearing and for inviting me to testify on the ‘‘California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality

Enhancement Act of 2001’’ (S. 976), introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

I would like to applaud Senator Feinstein at the outset for her leadership on California water issues. She has played an instrumental role in bringing together diverse parties in order to find consensus on an issue of tremendous complexity and

importance to California and the nation.

Before I address the specifics of the legislation, let me place the issue in a broader

context.

Over the past five years, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program has operated as a collaborative, cooperative effort among local, State and Federal governments. With the

release of the ‘‘Framework for Action’’ and Record of Decision last summer, we have

shifted gears in a significant manner. Planning is now taking a back seat to the

actual process of implementing an ambitious, far-reaching set of projects and programs aimed at improving water management and restoring ecological health in the

Bay-Delta system.

In light of this major transition, it is important to emphasize that California alone

cannot carry out the CALFED plan. CALFED has been—and must continue to be—

a close working partnership between Federal and State agencies. Federal agencies

play critical roles in implementing the CALFED plan. And federal funding is imperative for continued coordination and to maintain the forward movement towards

solving California’s water issues.

In addition to maintaining the collaborative nature of the program, I want to

briefly touch upon other fundamental concepts that should be incorporated in legislation to ensure that CALFED stays on track to meet its commitments.

First, the Federal agencies need clear direction and authority to continue participation in CALFED coordination efforts and in implementation of the CALFED plan.

CALFED presently consists of 24 member agencies, including 13 Federal agencies.

In order to ensure coordination and effective implementation, these agencies need

clear direction to participate in the program.

Second, the Federal agencies need authorization and funding to continue participation in the successful implementation of the commitments outlined in the

CALFED plan.

CALFED’s ambitious scope and timeline require both State and Federal funding

to ensure balanced implementation. California has invested heavily in CALFED. In

last year’s State budget, Governor Davis and the California Legislature appropriated over $500 million. While the current fiscal year State budget has yet to be

finalized, we anticipate over $500 million again will be appropriated.

If Federal funding is not provided in fiscal year 2002, CALFED will not stay on

track and the momentum that has been created over the past six years will come

to a grinding halt. Federal and State courtrooms will once again be littered with

litigation regarding the California water crisis.

30

Third, the Bush administration must direct the Federal agencies to take actions

to meet commitments in the CALFED plan for which authorization already exists

including the water supply targets for Westside San Joaquin valley farmers.

The CALFED plan establishes a delivery target for Central Valley Project southof-Delta agriculture water service contractors of 65-70% of contract entitlements in

normal water years. More than simply a provision addressing a particular group of

water users, this issue has come to represent CALFED’s commitment to a balanced

program that considers the needs of all stakeholders.

Following years of litigation and after months of negotiations, the Record of Decision commits federal and state agencies to operate the CALFED program in ways

that will increase water supply for south-of-Delta agriculture water service contractors, while at the same time avoid additional litigation over the Endangered Species

Act or water rights.

While it may be tempting to mandate this target, legislating a specific outcome

with respect to water delivery will immediately invite more litigation and gridlock.

The commitment embodied in the Record of Decision is clear. The challenge for

CALFED is carrying out that commitment. We have recommended amendments to

federal authorizing legislation that is consistent with the ROD and unambiguously

directs the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to implement

the tools necessary to carry out those provisions. Senator Feinstein’s bill contains

this language.

Fourth, legislation must be consistent with the CALFED Record of Decision

(ROD).

This is a vitally important issue from the standpoint of ensuring the continued

support of stakeholder interests as well as the California Legislature. The CALFED

ROD calls for a balanced approach to implementation. Furthermore, all aspects of

the program are interrelated and interdependent. Ecosystem restoration is dependent upon supply and conservation. Supply is dependent upon water use and efficiency and consistency in regulation. Water quality is dependent upon improved conveyance, levee stability and healthy watersheds. The success of all the elements depends on expanded and more strategically managed storage.

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the basic elements that must be included in any

legislative proposal to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Conformity

with the ROD is clearly our touchstone. At the same time, we fully realize that

other elements that transcend the ROD have been incorporated in legislative efforts

to reauthorize CALFED. Such provisions will be examined on the basis of whether

they help achieve implementation of CALFED and whether they are consistent with

the spirit and letter of the ROD.

Based on the criteria I have outlined above, we believe that Senator Feinstein’s bill meets the test. It recognizes the importance of the CALFED process, the Record

of Decision, and the critical need for Congress to provide significant levels of federal

funding for vital programs—a need that grows more marked with each passing week

in a year that has brought California lower than normal precipitation. For these

reasons, the State of California supports Senator Feinstein’s legislation and urges

expeditious consideration by this Subcommittee and the U.S. Senate.

Governor Davis recognizes the need for CALFED reauthorization bills in the

House and Senate to move forward this year to ensure adequate funding to meet

California’s pressing water needs. I assure you that the Governor and I look forward

to working with interested Members of Congress to reconcile the differences among

the bills to ensure that these efforts are consistent with the CALFED plan.

CALIFORNIANS AND THE COUNTRY NEED CALFED

I want to take a moment to offer a sense of the importance and scope of CALFED

and what it means to the people of California and the nation.

CALFED’s integrated plan to restore ecological health and improve water management in the Bay-Delta is:

• The most complex and extensive ecosystem restoration project ever proposed;

• The most intensive water conservation effort ever attempted;

• The most far-reaching effort to improve the drinking water quality for over 22

million Californians;

• An unprecedented commitment to science and watershed restoration;

• The most significant investment in storage, conveyance and Delta levees in decades.

The Central Valley of California includes over 80 percent of all irrigable land in

our State and provides up to 50 percent of the Nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables.

Providing a consistent water supply to California farmers is clearly a matter of national economic importance. In addition, our commercial fisheries require a healthy

31

river and Delta ecosystem. Central Valley salmon provide more than 50 percent of

the harvest from the California, Oregon and Washington coasts. Finally, Silicon Valley—a major engine of the national economy—requires a firm and high quality

water supply.

The CALFED program represents an innovative approach to addressing water in

California. It will ensure adequate and reliable water supplies for its farmers, cities,

and environment. It is the only program ever to win support from all major interest

groups in all parts of this large and diverse State.

In short, the benefits of the CALFED program will go far beyond California’s borders. Ensuring adequate and quality water supplies will have tremendously positive

economic and environmental impacts throughout the entire country. Congressional

action to reauthorize the CALFED program this year is clearly in the national interest.

CONCLUSION

More than six years of arduous negotiations have brought us to this point.

CALFED has created a new framework for resolving competing demands on California’s water resources. Now it is time to get on with the job. That will take hard

work, a renewed commitment from the Federal government, and the financial resources to make it happen.

Thanks to the leadership of Governor Davis and the California Legislature, combined with the wisdom of California voters in approving two successive water bond

initiatives, California has delivered its share of funding. It is time for Congress to

pass a reauthorization bill that provides urgently needed investments consistent

with the CALFED plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am going to ask some specific questions

quickly, if I might. And then I want to go to the other two Senators.

Madam Secretary, as you are aware, some environmental groups

have come out in opposition to this bill. I would like to know

whether you and the Governor specifically support the assurance

language that we have discussed with you, which we believe does

not mandate, but replicates the ROD.

Secretary NICHOLS. Yes, Senator, we have helped to draft that

language and we do not believe that it has the problem that has

been identified.

However, I would hasten to add that I am not someone who has

litigated these water cases over many years. I respect the comment

that Congressman Miller made about his fear that there might be

litigation that would result.

And I know you have indicated a willingness to, you know, to

look at that. But from our point of view, the need is there to give

assurances, and we believe that the language there does that without specifically creating any new water rights.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you think it is possible for California to

meet all of its future water needs without any new infrastructure

whatsoever?

Secretary NICHOLS. Absolutely not. Clearly, we are going to have

to invest heavily in infrastructure and as my written testimony indicated, the State of California has already stepped up to the plate. We had $500 million last year and $500 million this year in bond

money that the voters of California approved that is going towards

projects that will do everything from improving water conveyance

to dealing with leaky pipes and spills of sewage on our beaches.

Our system is overtaxed as it is and we know we are going to

have to be spending in the coming years and decades heavily to

bring it up to what is needed.

32

* Retained in subcommittee files.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you think it is possible for California to

meet its water needs and wean itself from its overdraw of the Colorado River without a massive effort to institute CALFED?

Secretary NICHOLS. Well, Senator, as you know, when we worked

on the 4.4 plan and have worked hard with then Secretary Babbitt

and with our neighboring States on trying to get California to within its mandated limits on what we can draw from the Colorado

River, we made some commitments that we would do certain important physical projects that would help us achieve that goal.

And a big part of what we were relying on was improvements in

ground water, improvements in surface storage and conveyance

that would enable us to get down to that level, as well as to very

important conservation programs, both in the urban and agricultural sectors.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks. Thanks very much.

Madam Secretary, I heard that—and this—you did not mention

it in your remarks and I have not had a chance to read your written remarks, but what we did, in our view, on the issue of beneficiary pay issue was essentially replicate the record of decision,

which says there shall be beneficiary pays but CALFED will make

that decision as to exactly the specifics.

Now, I am aware that some environmental groups do not feel

that that language is strong enough and they want to spell it out

in bill language. I have been concerned about that, because once

you do bill language, regardless of what circumstances are, you are

stuck with it.

Do you have concerns about the beneficiary pay language, and if

you do, what would you like to see?

Secretary NICHOLS. The cost area issue is one of those on which

we would like to work with you closely to make sure that it is consistent with what we would like to see.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. I would like to do that sooner rather

than later, if that is an agreement.

Secretary NICHOLS. Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, both, very much.

Senator Kyl.

Senator KYL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I would

note that Secretary Norton is already working with some of us in

Arizona on a project of ours. It is not exactly similar, but it is of

the same general nature and Secretary Norton has been very helpful so far. And I am sure that, as she indicated, she will be as helpful in trying to work through some of the problems and issues with

respect to this program.

I had a couple of questions for Ms. Nichols, if I could. The

CALFED briefing book, which has a lot of information in it, called

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Briefing Book, July 2001,* has on

page 20 a chart which shows the potential for about 3 million acre

feet of water that could be developed as a result of a combination

of things, from urban conservation to agricultural conservation,

water reclamation, conveyances and operations improvements, and

supply improvements from new storage. The latter category would

33

supply roughly half a million acre feet out of the 3 million, as I see

it.

And the comment under the chart reads, ‘‘Partnerships with local

and regional agencies to jointly implement water management programs and actions could increase California water supplies by

nearly 3 million acre feet over the next 10 years, enough water to

meet the needs of 6 million families for a year.’’ I checked with the Census. That is just about exactly the growth

in population in California over the next 10 years projected, at

least by the Census. So if we were able to do all of the things that

are called for here, we would be—I do not want to say treading

water, that would be the wrong metaphor, but we certainly would

not be gaining on the problem.

And while the chairman was kind enough to note a parochial interest that I have in this project from the standpoint of the citizens

of Arizona, I can assure you that my primary interest here is in

helping you, Senator Feinstein.

I do not think that we have enough of a concern in Arizona over

future California water use that Arizona has to be concerned about

theft of our water. We need to help with this program, because it

is a good idea in and of itself.

But I do want to make the point that there is going to have to

be a water development and storage component here that is robust

enough to, not just keep up with population increases, but hopefully meet some of the needs that have been identified in the past.

And given the fact that some of these estimates are probably

fairly rosy, and that only one-sixth of the supply is newly generated

water storage, I pose the question of whether you think there are

other potential water development aspects of this that could be

brought forth and, in particular, whether there are other potential

sources of water development in the northern part of California.

Secretary NICHOLS. Senator Kyl, I think I understand your question and, if I may, the chart that you are referring to and the comment, only refers to Federal- and State-sponsored storage projects.

It does not refer to locally developed or regionally developed water

district initiated water supply, water storage projects that are

going on around the State right now.

As a result of a number of factors, including increasing interests

in water transfers within the State, as well as a great deal of interest in the southern part of the State in developing independent

supplies, we see cities and water districts and irrigation districts

all investing in a number of new projects that are designed to improve the overall supply situation, including water reuse and water

conservation programs, as well as ground water management, conjunctive use and so forth.

So we really do not mean to suggest that this is everything that

is going on in the State to try to meet what we know are going to

be some pretty demanding water needs in the future.

Senator KYL. If there is any information you could supply to the

subcommittee that would help to edify us on that, it would be appreciated.

Secretary NICHOLS. We would be happy to do that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think, too, we talked about the first

tranche, the first three storage projects. Now, there is one that is

34

more controversial than the first three and that is the Sites project.

But that has a potential storage of 1,900,000 acre feet, with the environmental review completion date of August 2004.

And then there are a whole series of others as well. So back in

that same book, there are other storage projects—I think the point

that you make that is such a good point is there is no way California can meet its additional water needs in the future without storage.

Senator KYL. Yes. Yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. No way.

Senator KYL. Yes. Thank you very much.

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are very welcome.

Senator Burns.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I appreciate

these hearings today. And I guess I have a little institutional

knowledge in this situation, as we went through the wars of 1992

in the California Water Settlement in the Central Valley Project.

And every time I hear San Joaquin and Sacramento River and

Friant and Trinity, a lot of those sayings bring back old memories.

Madam Secretary Norton, I have some reservations. I think this

legislation needs authorization. And I am very supportive of what

the Senator from California is doing. But given the backlog of already authorized and unconstructed water projects that we have in

this country now and looking at the bottom line, the cost of this

one, are we going to have enough money to complete all these

projects and say, does California have to get in line with the rest

of us who have projects that have been authorized and have not

been funded?

Secretary NORTON. Well, obviously there are intense pressures

on the limited budget that we have. And we are working to stretch

that as much as we can to meet the various needs, but it is correct

that the projects do compete against each other, so we need to work

with you all on trying to prioritize.

Senator BURNS. Well, I am in the authorization of this thing, because I feel a little bit of a relationship with the people who were

promised water because they were having water taken away from

them on the west side. And that was in 1992. And nothing has

been done to deliver to those folks the water that they were promised after this whole process was completed.

I have good friends that are out there on the west end, in the

San Joaquin and those valleys and that is what I am concerned

with here, is that I am not so much concerned with the Bay and

the Delta, as I am with production agriculture and the base and

the promises that were made to the agricultural producers of that

area. So I am going to be very supportive of what Senator Feinstein is doing.

I have no other questions. I just want to be a part of this discussion as it moves along, because there are some very familiar names

on this witness list, even for today.

I did not like the settlement before. I did not like the 1992 settlement. In fact, I never did sign the conference report, because I felt

like the approach was just wrong, and they were making promises

that I knew that they could not fulfill, and they did not fulfill and

maybe we have the opportunity to do that now.

35

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, if you would?

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NORTH DAKOTA

Senator DORGAN. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. Let

me apologize for my delay, and I appreciate your chairing this

hearing.

The full Appropriations Committee has been meeting on two appropriations bills, and I have been over in the Capitol dealing with

that. And I asked if Senator Feinstein would be willing to chair

this hearing.

We appreciate the testimony of Secretary Norton and Secretary

Nichols. Welcome. And I understand that your testimony has been

positive and contributes a great deal to this committee.

I will put a statement in the record for this hearing. But I understand how important this issue is. I understand that the opportunity for us to talk about S. 976, which Senator Feinstein has authored to authorize the California Bay-Delta program is a very important piece of legislation for California and the region.

I am really pleased to be able to have this hearing and have the

voices be able to express their interests. And I look forward to

working with Senator Feinstein as we proceed with this authorization bill.

[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NORTH DAKOTA

Good afternoon. I’d like to welcome Secretary Norton, Secretary Nichols from California, Senator Boxer, Congressman Miller, and Congresswoman Tauscher here

today to our Subcommittee. I am pleased that the importance of the CALFED program is recognized since the Secretary, Members, and other top officials are with

us.

Today, the Water and Power Subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 976, the

‘‘California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act of

2001,’’ introduced by Senator Feinstein to authorize the California Bay-Delta Program, as well as to provide for other activities relating to ecosystem enhancement

and water supply.

I understand from Senator Feinstein that this legislation is of the highest importance to the State of California in meeting future water needs for urban areas as

well as for agricultural water use. I also understand that the program has yielded

important ecosystem improvements and will continue to do so in the future. As a

Senator from a state where water supply, water quality, and agriculture are significant issues, I appreciate the paramount importance of this subject.

For that reason, I am pleased to learn more about this legislation from our witnesses today.

The long-term Bay-Delta Program, which this bill would authorize, is the result

of efforts by the federal government working in partnership with the State of California. It also represents the hard work of others—urban water agencies; agricultural water users; the environmental community; and cities. The program is intended to address ecosystem restoration; provide a more reliable supply of water for

all water users; and improve water quality. Greater certainty with respect to water

management in California and the West is critical, because water is such a critical

resource for all of us.

CALFED authorization has expired. Last year, the State of California and the federal government reached a landmark agreement on the best way to proceed to meet

the State’s water needs. Senator Feinstein believes that her legislation, S. 976,

would ensure that the federal government would adhere to this agreement. I look

forward to hearing from the witnesses and hope we can get to the bottom of this

contentious, but important, issue.

36

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me thank you very much, both Madam Secretaries. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

And we will go to the next panel, which is Patrick Wright, director of CALFED from Sacramento; Richard Moss, the general manager of Friant Water Users; Stephen Hall, the executive director of

the Association of California Water Agencies; Grant Davis, executive director of the Bay Institute at San Rafael; and Phillip Pace,

chairman of the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Stuart Somach, partner of Somach, Simmons and

Dunn, who represents many of the water contractors—I do not

know quite who he is representing today, but we will find out—and

James Cunneen, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Chamber

of Commerce.

Welcome, gentlemen. Why we do not begin with you, Mr. Wright,

as the executive director of CALFED? Welcome.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, CALFED,

BAY-DELTA PROGRAM, SACRAMENTO, CA

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. And I thank all of you for coming all the way out here from California. I want to join our previous speakers in applauding your leadership in bringing us out

here and introducing a bill to try to bring us together and move

these reauthorization bills forward.

As you know, it has been just about a year since Secretary Babbitt and Governor Davis announced the CALFED Bay-Delta plan,

the largest and most comprehensive water management plan in the

Nation.

As you know, it calls for one of the Nation’s most ambitious ecosystem restoration programs and the biggest and largest investment in water infrastructure in over 40 years in the State.

And we are off to a fast start. In just the program’s first year,

we have managed to allocate over $300 million up and down the

State for water quality and water supply projects, over $150 million for ecosystem restoration programs.

We have signed local agreements on both the Sites Reservoir

project and the Los Vaqueros expansion projects to get those moving, with local support through a partnership with the agencies; 16

agreements with local communities to study ground water storage

programs, which in the long run may end up being just as significant. Our staff estimates that just the projects that we approved

and funded as pilots for further study have the potential for providing up to 300,000 acre feet in new yield or new delivery capability,

so we think both surface and ground water storage projects are

vital to make progress in meeting our long-term water needs.

We also are mindful of the fact that it was very dry this year,

and we have got to be very prepared in case next year is dry as

well. So the Department of Water Resources working with the

other agencies very quickly developed a drought contingency plan

and managed in a very short time frame to facilitate the transfer

of nearly 300,000 acre feet of water this year to areas that were

facing the most severe shortages.

We also launched an innovative environmental water account to

provide more water for fish in ways that would not affect project

37

allocations. And we also announced grant programs for local communities to meet their own water quality, watershed, ground water

management needs, again, throughout the Bay-Delta watershed.

And then finally, we hired a chief scientist to make sure that we

have strong independent scientific review of all of our major program elements. We know that is going to be a very key element

in building confidence and trust in this program.

As you know, everybody has got a horror story about California

water, but we know we are not going to be effective unless folks

have confidence in the scientific review process that we apply to all

of our projects, both the ecosystem projects, as well as the water

management projects.

Of course, all of this extraordinary progress this first year was

made possible both because we previously had a Federal authorization to give us a down payment on the program, and because recently the voters of California saw the wisdom with your leadership

and others in passing a bond act that gave us nearly $500 million

last year, another $500 million this year, together with a substantial contribution from Governor Davis, as part of the general fund

to get us going.

But, of course, that is not going to be enough. We are going to

continue to need strong Federal leadership and support to keep us

on track and on time.

Without these funds, we are going to have a tough time meeting

the very aggressive time frames and commitments in the plan. I

am particularly concerned about maintaining balance in the program, because the water bond, as wonderful as it was, does not

provide money for all elements of the program.

So we clearly need Federal money for those areas of the program

that are not as well covered by the water bond, including the storage and conveyance projects that are part of the CDP that are

largely dependent upon Federal funding. So we are definitely looking for your leadership and help in making sure that we get those

projects back on track.

As we head into our second year then, our highest priority will

continue to be to try to meet those aggressive time frames and

commitments that are in the plan, including the west side target

that has been the source of discussion throughout this week and

in the bills.

We know that that commitment is one that we have got to be

very serious about. We are going to move even more aggressively

with our State and Federal partners back in Sacramento to increase your confidence that we are serious about meeting that ROD

commitment.

I have worked on this program, as you know, since its inception

and even before that. And there is probably on average an article

a month in the newspaper about how this program is in limbo or

is in danger of collapse.

But we are still here. We are now making great progress, because the stakeholders realized this is the only game in town. A

balanced comprehensive plan is the only way to continue to make

progress and a State/Federal partnership is the only way to continue to make progress.

38

So again we look forward to your leadership in taking us to the

next level, as we move towards a reauthorization bill that we can

all support. Thank you again.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, CALFED, BAY-DELTA

PROGRAM, SACRAMENTO, CA

Thank you for inviting me to testify in support of federal authorization and funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I applaud the leadership of Senator Feinstein in introducing a bill to support the program, and I look forward to working

with the Congress, the state and federal administrations, and stakeholder groups

in California as the reauthorization bills move forward.

It has been just over a year since the Governor and the Secretary of Interior announced the CALFED Plan—the largest and most comprehensive water management plan in the nation. The Plan is a balanced, comprehensive approach to reduce

conflicts over our limited supplies, and to address the state’s long-term water needs.

It calls for one of the nation’s largest ecosystem restoration programs, and provides

specific deadlines for developing over 6 million acre-feet of new water storage

projects the biggest investment in the state’s water infrastructure in 40 years.

FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

After five years of planning and public input, the Program is now delivering on

its promise. In the Program’s first year, the CALFED agencies have:

• Allocated over $300 million from state and federal funds for water supply and

water quality projects throughout the state; • Allocated over $150 million for ecosystem restoration programs to protect and

restore our depleted fisheries; • Signed agreements with local partners to plan for major surface storage projects

in the Bay Area and Sacramento Valley, and sixteen agreements with local

agencies to study groundwater storage programs; • Developed a drought contingency plan, and made available 300,000 acre this

year to areas facing water shortages; • Launched an innovative Environmental Water Account to set aside water for

fish without reducing allocations to farms and cities. • Developed grant programs for local agencies to address drinking water, water

conservation, groundwater management, and watershed protection projects

throughout the state; • Hired a Chief Scientist and launched an unprecedented effort to apply independent scientific review to all major elements of the Program.

FUNDING NEEDS

This extraordinary progress was made possible because California voters saw the

wisdom of investing in California’s water future through the passage of Propositions 204 and 13 in 1996 and 2000, respectively. Last year, the State allocated over $500

million to the Program, and another $500 million is likely to be available next year.

But the Program also needs significant federal funding to meet our objectives and maintain a strong state-federal partnership. The CALFED Plan calls for a $3 billion

commitment from the federal government to match the state and local shares during

the first seven-year stage of the Program. Without these funds, many key elements

of the Plan will be significantly delayed or canceled. For the most part, we are on

track and on time. But because of limited federal funds, we are falling behind on

our schedules for expansion of Shasta Reservoir and other projects that depend primarily on federal funding.

Has the Program ended all water conflicts in the state? No. As long as there are

competing needs for limited water supplies, conflicts are inevitable. But investments

in the Plan will help us better manage these conflicts. For example, through development of the Environmental Water Account this year, additional water was allocated to endangered fish without affecting other uses, and through our transfers

program, 300,000 acre feet was delivered to areas facing water shortages. Through

these and other investments in the storage, conveyance, water use efficiency, and

ecosystem restoration projects described in the CALFED Plan, we can develop the

flexibility and reliability necessary to meet the state’s long-term water needs.

SECOND YEAR PRIORITIES

As we head into our second year, our top priorities include:

39

First, continuing to meet the aggressive milestones and commitments in the plan.

With federal support and funding, we can stay on time and track and maintain a

balanced program.

Second, strengthening our science program. We intend to hire additional staff and

convene expert panels to improve the scientific basis of agency decisions, and to ensure that only the highest quality projects are funded.

Third and most important, strengthening our partnerships with local and regional

communities. The program will be successful only if it supports and builds upon collaborative efforts to address water issues at the local or regional level. Just last

month, for example, we allocated $55 million to 178 groundwater management, watershed, and water use efficiency projects throughout the state. None of these funds

are for state or federal agencies; they are all going to local communities to solve

their most pressing water needs.

With federal support and funding, the CALFED Program can continue to work

with local partners in building the infrastructure necessary to provide high quality,

reliability supplies for cities, farms, and the environment.

Thank you again for hearing my testimony.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Mr. Wright.

Mr. Moss, representing the Friant Water Users. I guess 1,500 individual—or is it more than that?

Mr. MOSS. 15,000, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon.

Mr. MOSS. 15,000 small family farmers with an average farm

size of approximately 100 acres.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MOSS, GENERAL MANAGER,

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY, LINDSAY, CA

Mr. MOSS. I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear here

today, Ms. Feinstein, Chairman Dorgan and the rest of the members of the committee.

I am Richard Moss, general manager of Friant Water Users. We

have 25 member water agencies in our organization. We are part

of the Friant division of the Central Valley Project; again, 1 million

acres on the east side of the southern San Joaquin Valley, some of

the world’s most productive farmland generating in excess of $4 billion a year in agricultural production of high-value crops.

The Friant Division gets its water out of the San Joaquin River

tributary to the Bay-Delta from Friant Dam and Millerton Reservoir, northeast of Fresno.

We are also indirectly dependent upon Delta exports, in that the

Friant Division was put together back in the 1940’s with an agreement with the people known as the Exchange Contractors, the

original water right holders on the San Joaquin River.

We get to divert their water rights at Friant Dam, in exchange

for providing a substitute supply that is generated out of Shasta

Reservoir in northern California and pumped and delivered out of

the Tracy Pumps, the CVP pumps in the Delta.

Thus we have really two reasons to have a significant interest in

the success of CALFED, both as a direct diverter, and as well as

a significant export interest.

California, as you have noted, Senator, often is at a crossroads

in terms of its water future. California now has a chronic water

shortage. We really are on the verge of a water crisis.

This chronic water shortage is especially bad in the San Joaquin

Valley, where the majority of the impacts of regulatory water reallocation have focused. The region was already water short to

40

begin with, which manifests itself in the form of ground water overdraft to the tune of almost 1 million acre feet a year.

We are also faced with the prospect of trying to return a salmon

run, a salmon fishery to the upper San Joaquin River below Friant

Dam, where one has not existed for 50 years.

We are studying actually how to do this in cooperation with the

environmental community in a joint venture of how to restore a

naturally reproducing fishery and to do so in a way that keeps our

water users whole from a water supply and cost standpoint.

Our studies will be completed in a number of months from now,

but we do know one result, and that is: The restoration program

will be very, very expensive.

The Friant Water Users Authority is in support of S. 976, the

California Ecosystem Water Supply, Water Quality Enhancement

Act. The congressional authorization and funding of the CALFED

program is vitally important.

In S. 976 there is a real and needed commitment to environmental restoration and enhancement. There is a real and needed

commitment to new infrastructure, including new surface storage

reservoirs.

There is a real and needed commitment to not only improving

the hub of California’s water system, the Bay-Delta, but also to go

beyond the Bay-Delta and support water and environmental

projects that were not fully contemplated as part of the CALFED

plan.

This last point is of great value to Friant in that we are concerned that the CALFED plan has not fully contemplated Upper

San Joaquin River restoration. And thus we take great solace in

the legislation in that it provides the ability to get projects and programs that were not—that are not—get them funded that were not

prescribed as part of the original CALFED plan.

We are also supportive of the clear desire in the legislation to accelerate the process of putting new infrastructure in place. We cannot afford decades of studies before we make meaningful improvements in our infrastructure.

Unfortunately, ending in a negative note, we remain very concerned about the assurances to be provided one group of water

users in California by the bill.

We believe it clearly is the intent of the CALFED program to

provide real improvements to those water users, and we support

that intent. Where we get cross-wise is when you cross that line—

and we have heard it today—of ‘‘Does an improvement—is an improvement a goal, an objective, or is it a federally legislated mandate?’’

We must take great care in exercising in what we are doing here

to make sure we do not create legal hooks for those water agencies

who have a history of litigating early and often and in order to try

to remedy their lack of water right priority.

We have seen your most recent proposed amendments to the bill,

and we are very concerned that it moves in the wrong direction in

terms of crossing that line and——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me—you are saying on the assurance

language——

41

Mr. MOSS. Yes. We are concerned that it is moving to more of

a mandate as compared to less of one.

Senator FEINSTEIN. ‘‘Pursuant to the ROD’’ or ‘‘subject to the

ROD,’’ is it that phrase?

Mr. MOSS. It is more than that. It is more than that, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, could you tell us exactly what it is?

Mr. MOSS. Well, we believe that the language, in fact, does create

a Federal mandate to provide a certain level of water supply to

those water users. So it is more than just the ‘‘pursuant’’ language.

We would have problems with the language beyond just the initial

part of that sentence.

Senator FEINSTEIN. For me and my colleagues, we have two sides

of the valley. And this is where there is the rub.

[Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. The Friant users, 15,000 smaller farmers on

the east side of the valley and the west side of the valley, which

are larger agri-business type farms, with different water rights.

And it is extraordinarily difficult to remedy this.

Mr. MOSS. It is, Senator. I guess I could offer that the level of

concern is, I think, increasing in your proximity to the west side.

If you are the only other CVP contractor south of the Delta, having gone through no less than 10 years of litigation on very similar

issues of uncertainty over language and the law, and most recently

a State application to take better than half of our water away, we

are very concerned about how this legislation might provide that

legal hook.

And given that we have language now, potentially on both the

House and Senate side, it really causes us to reassess our strategy

in dealing with this issue. And I am not sure what my board will

do. I will be talking to them next week about how we will go forward with both of these bills, both on the Senate and House side.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, do not rush off. Let us talk. I mean, we

will find a way to solve this.

Mr. MOSS. I appreciate that very much, Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Mr. MOSS. And thank you all for hearing my testimony and inviting me here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MOSS, GENERAL MANAGER, FRIANT WATER

USERS AUTHORITY, LINDSAY, CA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I very much appreciate being

given the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee to provide support for and

comment on S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 and comment on the CalFed Program. I am testifying today

as the General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority and as a small citrus

grower in the Friant Division service area.

We now have a much better understanding of the blueprint for the CalFed actions

anticipated over the next several years. Negotiations between state and federal administrations culminated last year in an agreement on a CalFed plan, supported by

a record of decision and further agreement on how to implement that plan. We are

now poised to pick up where we left off last fall in getting the needed federal authorization to begin actual implementation of this plan. I intend to update you herein with the most current views of the Friant Water Users Authority on the CalFed

Program and how it should authorized. In that regard, I have attached as Exhibit

A to my testimony the policy document adopted by the Friant Water Users Authority Board of Directors that provides these views in summary policy form.

42

INTRODUCTION

I am Richard M. Moss, the General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority.

The Friant Water Users Authority is a joint powers authority formed under state

law comprised of 25 member agencies that all get water from the Friant Division

of the CVP.

The Friant Division service area is comprised of approximately 1 million acres of

the world’s richest farmland. It ranges from the southern part of Merced County,

all the way to the Grapevine in Kern County. The majority of the service area is

in Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. This one-million-acre area annually

produces about $4 billion in gross agricultural production. We grow a tremendous

variety of crops. The majority of the area is dedicated to permanent plantings of

grapes, nuts, tree fruit and citrus. We also have a significant amount of row and

field crops, as well as leading the nation in dairy production. This area is truly

unique in its quality of agriculture and in its ability to produce all of this on small

family farms that average approximately 100 acres in size. The area is also renowned for its highly efficient use of irrigation water, having been a ‘‘hot bed’’ for

the development of drip and low volume irrigation technology. We can boast of some

of the highest irrigation efficiencies found anywhere in the world.

The Friant Division service area is comprised of approximately 1 million acres of

the world’s richest farmland. It ranges from the southern part of Merced County,

all the way to the Grapevine in Kern County. The majority of the service area is

in Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. This one-million-acre area annually

produces about $4 billion in gross agricultural production. We grow a tremendous

variety of crops. The majority of the area is dedicated to permanent plantings of

grapes, nuts, tree fruit and citrus. We also have a significant amount of row and

field crops, as well as leading the nation in dairy production. This area is truly

unique in its quality of agriculture and in its ability to produce all of this on small

family farms that average approximately 100 acres in size. The area is also renowned for its highly efficient use of irrigation water, having been a ‘‘hot bed’’ for

the development of drip and low volume irrigation technology. We can boast of some

of the highest irrigation efficiencies found anywhere in the world.

The Friant Division of the CVP consists of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake on the

San Joaquin River northeast of Fresno, the 152-mile Friant-Kern Canal that runs

south all the way to Bakersfield and the 36-mile Madera Canal that runs north to

the Chowchilla River. The Friant Division of the CVP annually delivers approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water. This water supply is principally used as a supplemental water supply, providing only 1.5 acre-feet per acre on average. However,

there are some parts of the service area that rely totally on the Friant Division

water as their sole source of supply. The area is blessed with good quality groundwater aquifers. Groundwater is the firm source of supply for the majority of the

service area. The Friant Division is unique in the west in that it employs a twoclass system of water deliveries. The Class 1 water is the first water to develop behind Friant Dam and is delivered to those parts of the service area that have limited or no access to groundwater supplies. The Class 2 water develops only after the

Class 1 demands have been met and is delivered to those parts of the service area

that can rely on groundwater. Class 2 water is typically used to replenish the

groundwater through ‘‘in-lieu’’ recharge—providing growers with surface water inlieu of using their wells, and through direct recharge—percolating water in recharge

basins, natural water ways and unlined canals into the underground aquifers. The

Friant Division has been in service for 50 years and has been successful in arresting

the serious condition of groundwater overdraft that existed prior to the project. It

should be noted, however, that a condition of critical groundwater overdraft still exists in parts of the service area and in neighboring areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The majority of the water rights to the San Joaquin River allowing for the diversion of water at Friant Dam are based on purchase and exchange agreements with

the individuals and entities that held rights on the San Joaquin River at the time

the Friant Division was developed. The single largest of these agreements requires

annual delivery of 840,000 acre-feet of water to the central San Joaquin Valley near

Mendota (commonly referred to as the Exchange Contract). Thus, the Friant Division is dependent upon other features of the CVP, including Shasta Dam, the Tracy

Pumping Plant and the Delta-Mendota Canal, to facilitate this required exchange.

It is important to note that if for some reason the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is

unable to meet the demands of the Exchange Contract out of Delta export supplies,

the Exchange Contract provides for the release of water from Friant Dam to meet

Exchange Contractor needs.

43

CALIFORNIA’S WATER CRISIS

There are a number of factors that have led to the challenges, more accurately

the crisis, we are facing in terms of a chronic water shortage for the state and in

particularly for the San Joaquin Valley as a region.

The state population growth is an underlying force that continues to drive the

need for developing additional water supplies. Yet, we have placed very few new

water projects on line over the past twenty years. This lack of new water supply

infrastructure to meet growing population needs means that we have had to live off

of the ‘‘extra’’ capacity of the system that our forefathers designed and built 30, 40

or 50 years ago. That extra capacity is gone. There is now very limited ability to

weather a one or two year drought, much less a drought comparable to even the

most recent drought of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.

Further straining the system’s capacity and flexibility are the needs associated

with the development of a new environmental ethic in the state and the nation that

has sought to address a perceived lack of consideration given to the environment

with the construction of much of our water supply system. I remember vividly discussing with my Central Valley Project manager counterparts how we were going

to share the remaining unallocated yield of the CVP of some 1.2 million acre-feet

as short a time ago as in 1989. Since that time, we have had the passage and implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and other regulatory actions to protect and enhance the environment that have resulted in less and less

water being available for human uses, including agricultural production. A great

deal of this lessening water supply impact has come to rest on the San Joaquin Valley as a region. Water supplies that were historically very dependable are now very

unreliable. The region suffers from a well-documented groundwater overdraft that

has been significantly worsened as a result of decreased availability of surface water

supplies.

The reliability of Friant Division water supplies is currently at risk as a result

of at least two major actions or activities. In the first, litigation brought in 1988

by a number of environmental and fishing organizations seeks to return sufficient

flow to the upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River for the restoration of a salmon

fishery. Estimates of the need for additional water to restore this fishery range from

150,000 acre-feet to some 600,000 acre-feet per year on the average. If Friant water

users were ordered by the courts to release existing supplies for this purpose, it obviously would have a major impact on the availability of water to Friant Division

water users unless additional water supplies were developed to meet this need. It

is important to note that a stay to this litigation was developed by the parties to

the action in November of 1999 that allowed the parties a limited period of time

to explore ways of restoring flow and natural processes to the upper mainstem of

the San Joaquin River which would provide for the restoration of a fishery while

not adversely impacting the available water supply or cost of water to Friant water

users. The development of a plan of restoration has been progressing for a year,

with study results expected to be available at the end of this year or early next year.

The second risk to Friant Division water supplies lies within the fact that the region is now chronically water short. Generally, those areas of the San Joaquin Valley that were the last to develop their land and their rights to water are the first

to be shorted when the inevitable droughts occur. In particular, with the loss of

water supply reliability of waters being exported out of the Sacramento/San Joaquin

River Delta, some of the water users served by the Delta export pumps apparently

feel compelled to attack the water rights and water supplies of their neighbors within the region. These attacks have taken the form of several legal challenges to CVP

operations or other legal maneuvering aimed at reallocating the very limited water

supplies that exist for the balance of the region. It is important to note that not

everyone suffering from the water supply cutbacks has taken this aggressive approach. Many, such as the Kern County Water Agency and others, look to a more

cooperative approach to dealing with their water shortages; relying upon creativity

and partnerships as compared to litigation and divisiveness. The legal challenges

and attacks on our continued beneficial use of Friant Division water supplies have

consistently been defeated. However, the cost of defending these claims has been extraordinary, both monetarily and in terms of the uncertainty and acrimony created.

There also exists a threat to the continued use of the available water supplies for

our agricultural economy that are driven by our own regional growth. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the fastest growing regions in the state. Balancing urban area

growth with maintenance of the most productive agricultural region in the world

presents constant challenges. Keeping prime farmland in production next to burgeoning cities is becoming more and more difficult. Moving growth to non-irrigated

lands, like the San Joaquin Valley’s foothills, can only be accomplished if the new

44

development brings a water supply with it. Given the region’s already chronically

water short condition, where will this water supply come from unless new supplies

are developed?

ACTIONS THAT FRIANT WATER USERS HAVE TAKEN TO IMPROVE OUR

WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY

Friant water users believe strongly in joining with others to create mutually beneficial partnerships that address our problems and the problems of others.

If you were to have asked what the greatest threat to Friant Division water supplies was four years ago, I would have said it was the potential of an adverse outcome in the effort to allocate the responsibility for meeting Bay/Delta water quality

standards. The stage was set for a massive fight before the California State Water

Resources Control Board between the major water users on the San Joaquin River

upstream of the point where it enters the Bay/Delta, including entities such as Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation District, the

City and County of San Francisco, Delta Export interests, Friant water users and

others. Coming out of the1994 Bay/Delta Accord, the California State Water Resources Control Board was charged with allocating the responsibility for meeting the

flow and water quality standards to the water right holders for waters tributary to

the Bay/Delta.

On the San Joaquin River, the responsibility for meeting the new standards was

negotiated and agreed to by the major water right holders on the river. This agreement is known as the San Joaquin River Agreement and was formally adopted by

the State Board in December 1999. The Friant Water Users Authority, on behalf

of the Friant Division districts, was a major contributor to the development of this

agreement. This agreement provides for a twelve-year timeframe to test theories of

river flow augmentation combined with export pumping regimes and operation of a

barrier at the head of the Old River Channel, designed to provide the greatest benefit, in terms of survival, for fall run Chinook salmon. The technical aspects of the

San Joaquin River Agreement are known as the Vernalis Adaptive Management

Plan or ‘‘VAMP.’’ In essence, twelve years have been provided for the users of waters from the San Joaquin River (including Friant water users) to develop a longterm sustainable plan for the protection of San Joaquin River fisheries based upon

sound scientific evidence that will be generated from the VAMP analysis. This is

considered by virtually everyone in the California water community to be a victory

for compromise over conflict. These once adverse interests now meet several times

a year to adaptively manage the experimental program and to optimize the value

of the San Joaquin River Agreement to the parties and to the environment. It is

certainty that, had the San Joaquin River interests chosen to fight rather than pursue creative solutions, we would all be either still before the State Board or in court

rather than getting about the business of addressing water quality needs in the

Delta.

The previously mentioned stay in the litigation to restore a salmon fishery to the

upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River should also be considered a valuable partnership activity on the behalf of Friant water users to address an issue of tremendous concern. While there is a considerable way to go to completion of a plan for

restoration that keeps Friant Division water users whole from a water supply and

cost standpoint, I have every belief that this effort will be a success. Ten years of

litigation have led to this consensus-based attempt to find resolution to some otherwise intractable issues. The litigation has the potential to go on for at least another

ten years. Even if the plaintiffs were successful, there would be no measurable improvement in the environmental condition of the San Joaquin River below Friant

Dam for a long, long time. Environmental restoration is now being accomplished

and, importantly, the economy of the east side of the San Joaquin Valley is being

maintained.

Lastly, let me mention the fledgling cooperative efforts between the Friant Water

Users Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

(‘‘MWD’’) to find mutually beneficial ways to improve water management. Within

the past year, Friant interests and MWD representatives began what we hope will

be a productive partnership to assist MWD to significantly improve the water quality to its Southern California water users while at the same time improving the capabilities of Friant Division water districts to manage available and new water supplies to meet existing needs, including the need to develop water supplies for San

Joaquin River restoration. This new partnership has great potential to provide significant benefits to the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California. This partnership, when combined with the partnering efforts involved with San Joaquin

45

River restoration, clearly has the potential to lead to actions that can benefit virtually the entire state.

S. 976, THE CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001

As I know you are aware, the Friant Water Users Authority is supportive of S.

976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act

of 2001 that was introduced by Senator Feinstein. Congressional authorization of

the CalFed program and a real federal commitment to addressing California’s water

needs are vitally important, and S. 976 is therefore an important and needed bill.

We very much appreciate the leadership of Senator Feinstein and this Committee

in developing this legislation. We have sought to have it strengthened in a couple

of regards in order to be more supportive of the actions and programs we have underway and actions and programs we foresee in the future, including those just previously mentioned.

As noted earlier, in order to address a significant threat to the Friant Division’s

water security, we are developing and implementing a program of restoration for the

upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. Congress clearly recognized the environmental tradeoffs it was making when it authorized the construction of the Friant Division of the CVP back in 1939. We expect Congress and the

federal government to have a major role in the restoration of the river and return

of a fishery. Our progress on the studies and development of a plan for restoration

are ‘‘out of synch’’ from a timing perspective with the immediately needed authorization of the CalFed Program. We know the funding needs for the San Joaquin River

restoration program will be significant and we are concerned that they have not

been adequately considered in the CalFed Framework Agreement and the subsequent record of decision.

However, we are pleased to see provisions contemplated in the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 that, with some

additional clarification, could well address our concerns. The San Joaquin River is

specifically noted for restoration in Section 4. Bay-Delta Program. As well a study

of increased San Joaquin River storage is proposed. Additionally, Section 5. Water

Supply Program would appear to allow projects for water supply development, water

quality improvements and environmental enhancement to qualify for federal grant

funding that may not be addressed or fully addressed in the CalFed Bay-Delta Program. We believe that with some assurance that our multi-benefit programs for environmental restoration, water supply improvement and water quality improvement

can qualify under these sections, that we can compete effectively for such monies

in the future to help meet our local water supply and river restoration needs.

We would also like to see clarification in the legislation that the stated grant

funding limits only limit the federal funding to be provided under the legislation

and not the total federal funding that may be brought to bear on a project. This

is especially important when considering the use of existing funding sources such

as the CVPIA Restoration Fund where there is a clear overlap of purpose and the

funding source is primarily provided by water and power users of the CVP, yet its

use may be inadvertently limited on a project because of the federal funding caps

contemplated in this bill.

Certainly, creating a well funded, balanced and scientifically based program of environmental restoration of the Bay/Delta and its tributaries will be consistent with

and supportive of our needed San Joaquin River restoration effort. Even if we are

successful in returning the conditions favorable to an anadromous fishery below

Friant Dam, the conditions all of the way down the river, through the Delta,

through the Bay and to the ocean must also be conducive to successful salmon smolt

out-migration and the return of the adults. In this regard, it is easy to understand

why we believe CalFed must be authorized and the environmental restoration program get underway quickly in order for Friant water users to ultimately obtain

their needed water supply security.

New water supply infrastructure, including the new storage contemplated in the

record of decision, must be supported and the regulatory hurdles leading to construction minimized. This does not mean abandoning existing law and regulation

and running the risk of making environmental or economic mistakes. However, a

plan of water supply development and water quality improvements that takes too

long to come to fruition will only create new mistrust of the process and new reasons for individual interests to think and act only for themselves. Being able to

move effectively and efficiently in making the necessary determinations to effect

water system improvements is essential.

46

Finally, we have experienced first-hand the cost and anguish of defending our

water rights and water supplies from those who would interpret existing law to an

end never intended by the legislature. We remain concerned about any current or

future effort to weaken our ability to meet the needs of our service area, including

the needs of the San Joaquin River, by those desperate for additional water supplies

within the region. In that regard, we see great potential for the inadvertent upset

of existing water rights and operational priorities for the CVP with otherwise wellintentioned law to provide assurances of a water supply where, truly, no assurance

can be found. Clearly, an assurance to some has the potential to become a huge liability to others and must be avoided unless all interests are in agreement and the

source of the assurance is clear.

In this regard, as I know you are aware, the Friant Water Users Authority has

been and remains concerned about language in this bill that has the potential to

be interpreted as providing a certain water supply for south-of-Delta Central Valley

Project agricultural water contractors at the expense of other stakeholders.

The Friant Water Users Authority believes that it clearly is the intent of the

CalFed record of decision to provide this assurance as an achievable objective within

the context of other goals established as part of the CalFed Program. As such, the

endorsement of the CalFed record of decision by Congress in its authorization of the

CalFed Program is all that should be needed to provide federal agencies the directive to meet this objective. Mandating achievement of this objective, or even separately highlighting it, in the CalFed authorization is unnecessary and runs the risk

of creating a legal nexus and confusion about Congressional intent on this most important issue. The obvious downside is creating legal fodder for those who have a

history of using any claimed lack of clarity in federal law or contracts to bootstrap

themselves to an improved water supply position at the expense of others. I, as well

as others, have endeavored for the past several weeks to develop language changes

that would provide the clarity needed to protect the universe of interests that could

be affected by such language. I am concerned that such language changes are not

achievable.

CLOSING

In closing, let me extend my appreciation for the invitation to appear before the

Committee today. The Friant Water Users Authority very much appreciates your interest in providing the San Joaquin Valley and all of California a safe and reliable

water supply and a restored environment. It is difficult to limit my comments to

just those noted above. I would encourage the Committee to review the policy statement of the Friant Water Users Authority on CalFed attached as Exhibit A to better

understand why we support S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and

Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 and believe it clearly provides a vehicle

for moving forward on these most important issues.

We look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you.

Exhibit A

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY

POLICY PRINCIPLES REGARDING CALFED

Recitals—In consideration of the policy principles regarding CalFed, the Board of

Directors of the Friant Water Users Authority finds the following things to be true

and correct:

1. The Friant Water Users Authority was created to protect the water and water

rights of its member agencies and to assist in maintaining an adequate, reliable and

affordable water supply for the water users served by its member agencies;

2. The Friant Division of the Central Valley Project is predicated upon a program

of exchange of water between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the entities and

agencies known as the Exchange Contractors, memorialized as the Exchange Contract revised and dated December 6, 1967. Thus, the Friant Division is indirectly

dependent upon exports of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation from the Sacramento/

San Joaquin River Delta;

3. A number of Friant Water Users Authority member agencies have contracts for

delivery of water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation taken directly from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta;

4. The region served by the member agencies of the Friant Water Users Authority

is currently water short. This shortage manifests itself in the form of groundwater

overdraft;

5. The Friant Water Users Authority is currently engaged in a program of study

and pilot project implementation resulting from litigation known as NRDC vs. PatVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
47

terson which seeks to restore, on a mutually acceptable basis, the environmental

values of the San Joaquin River downstream from Friant Dam while not adversely

impacting the overall sufficiency, reliability and costs of water to the Friant Division

of the Central Valley Project, more particularly described in the Mutual Goals Statement dated June 3, 1999;

6. The Friant Water Users Authority is signatory and supports the San Joaquin

River Agreement and the principles of cooperation and sound water management it

represents;

7. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act was passed into law in 1992. It

made sweeping changes to the amount of water available from the Central Valley

Project, the cost of water available from the Central Valley Project, the priorities

for Central Valley Project deliveries and the terms of contracting for water with the

federal government. As a result of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the

Friant Division of the Central Valley Project currently pays an average of $20 million per year into the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Restoration Fund.

Principles—The Board of Directors directs the Friant Water Users Authority’s

support of and participation in the CalFed Bay-Delta Program, as a means to further the interests of the Friant Water Users Authority and its members agencies,

provided that implementation of CalFed is consistent with the following policy principles and guidelines:

1. In meeting all of these stated principles, it is the belief of the Friant Water

Users Authority that significant additional surface and ground water storage will

be needed in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere within California.

2. Implementation of CalFed should provide for opportunities to improve Friant

Water Users Authority member agency water supply availability and reliability with

no significant degradation in overall water quality. In no case should Authority

member water supplies be put at greater risk or reduced in their sufficiency or reliability;

3. CalFed should promote programs consistent with the goals of San Joaquin

River restoration;

4. The facilities depended upon, either directly or indirectly, by Friant Water

Users Authority member agencies must be protected from degradation;

5. Oversight and management of the CalFed Bay-Delta Program should achieve

the following results:

a. Provide opportunities for meaningful participation by Friant Water Users

Authority representatives in actual decisions in prioritization, program calibration and regulatory adaptive management;

b. Decision making based upon the best available science;

c. Provide long-term stability and regulatory assurances;

d. Provide fiscal responsibility while providing value to Friant Water Users

Authority member agency water users;

e. Provide a fair allocation of costs, commensurate with benefits received.

6. CalFed should recognize the regulatory and water supply baseline from which

benefits are measured as being the conditions as they existed prior to the implementation of the protections for the winter run salmon and the passage of the Central

Valley Project Improvement Act;

7. CalFed should promote efficient water use through incentive-based, cost-effective (to those paying the costs) implementation of conservation and recycling programs;

8. Implementation of CalFed should be consistent with the San Joaquin River

Agreement;

9. Implementation of CalFed should not jeopardize the continued ability of the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to perform under the Exchange Contract by providing

water sources other then as a result of water releases from Friant Dam, in fulfillment of that contract; and

10. Implementation of CalFed should not result in any involuntary redistribution

or taking of water supplies or water rights from existing users currently putting

water to beneficial use within their rights as provided for under state and federal

law.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Hall of ACWA. Steve, if you would explain ACWA to everybody.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN K. HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

Mr. HALL. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

48

My name is Steve Hall. I represent the Association of California

Water Agencies.

Like you, Senator, we represent both the east side and the west

side of the San Joaquin Valley, and so I feel your pain. And we also

represent water agencies throughout the State of California, both

agricultural and urban water agencies.

I want to begin, if I may, by thanking you for your longstanding

leadership, not just with this legislation, but for a long period of

time; and most recently for your stirring and, fortunately, effective

defense of the CALFED appropriation of $40 million last night on

the Senate floor.

It is money that is badly needed to keep this program viable

and—in fact, if I may, I want to harken back to a couple of things

you said last night in defending this appropriation.

First, analogizing it to the energy crisis that we face in California: There are some very clear parallels between the energy crisis

that we face and the water crisis that we are about to face in California.

The water crisis is temporarily hidden, but it is very real; and

we are in the first of what unfortunately could be several dry

years, where we will definitely begin to overshadow our current energy crisis.

And we could hopefully prevent it, if we are lucky enough to

avoid some dry years in the next few and if we move with this legislation to try to bring the parties together and invest in our infrastructure, so we can avoid a similar crisis.

The other comment you made last night that I think is analogous

is what we are experiencing now in the Klamath. This bill, this

program is very important to California. But I really think it is important throughout the West.

I have the privilege of working with water professionals in other

Western States. And everywhere I go, the issues, the problems are

the same, whether it is in the Columbia Basin or on the Colorado

River, in Klamath or in our Bay-Delta estuary, the growing tension

between preserving our environmental values and serving a growing population throughout the West.

If you read the popular press, you come to believe that there

have to be winners and losers in this fight, that it is fish versus

farmers; that farmers have to suffer in order to protect fish or vice

versa; that somehow habitat and humanity cannot coexist.

Well, CALFED is dedicated to the proposition that it need not be

that way. And we can have a healthy ecosystem and a healthy

economy. We can have a growing Western population and maintain

robust fish and wildlife populations.

Senator, beginning in the early 1990’s, you began to take a leadership role in this. I think you have what very few political leaders

have, a hard-wired genetic code that gives you the incurable optimism necessary to do this. I feel sorry for you——

Senator BURNS. Is that good or bad?

[Laughter.]

Mr. HALL. Well, it is bad for her, but it is really good for the rest

of us.

[Laughter.]

49

Mr. HALL. Beginning first with Governor Wilson and then Governor Davis, with Governor—with President Clinton and now with

President Bush, there seems to be one common denominator—there

were two Governors, two Presidents, and one Senator, who are

willing to stick their necks out to try to get something done in California water.

And the result is we now have a model program. The CALFED

program is a balanced program of ecosystem restoration which, by

the way, the water users fully support. It is in our enlightened self

interest to support the ecosystem restoration because we need to

have healthy fish populations or our water supplies become unreliable.

The law requires it; our environmental ethic dictates it. We are

going to have an environmental restoration program as part of this.

We already do.

It has got all of the water management tools that people talk

about, conservation, reclamation, water transfers. It has got conveyance improvements. It has got a focus on drinking water quality, which we badly need in our system because we have increasing

Federal mandates and a public that demands that their water be

safe to drink. And there is only one way to provide that and that

is to invest in the system.

It has also got storage, which is controversial with some, but I

could not agree with you more, Senator. We have to have it. It is

an essential tool—not a desirable tool, an essential tool—to meeting our water needs in the future.

We have all of these things in the package because we do need

them all. And there is one other thing. We need to have a balanced

implementation of these things. We cannot run out ahead in the

implementation of one feature of this and leave the others behind

because, you know what? In California, consensus breaks down

quickly. It is a wonderful concept. It breaks down as soon as somebody gets what they want without bringing the others along.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right.

Mr. HALL. Senator, I cannot stress this importantly enough: The

authorization process in your bill has to be correct so that we stay

linked together, so that no one interest group gets out ahead of the

other. If we fail to succeed in doing that, then I do not believe ultimately the CALFED program can succeed. So we are pledged to

work with you in crafting legislative language that does that.

Now, why should people across the country care? It is a wonderful program for California, but why should other people care? Well,

first, the Federal Government should care because it has the largest single water project in the State.

So if nothing else, the Federal Government should be interested

in protecting its investment and continuing to deliver the water

that it has contracted with people to deliver. Second, this will help California live within its $4.4 million acre

feet Colorado River entitlement, secondly. And I think most importantly, I spoke earlier in my testimony about the problems being

similar throughout the West. Well, I think we now have a model

program that can be used throughout the West to balance the

needs of the environment with human needs and get past these

thorny ESA and other water conflict problems that we face

50

throughout the West. But we have got to pass this bill in order to

make it a model and a precedent for other areas of the West.

So in closing, I just want to urge the subcommittee—though I see

that there are not many members of the subcommittee left—— Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, that is all right. Staffs are here.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HALL. I got it.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Believe me, on this stuff, that counts.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HALL. I want to urge the subcommittee to mark this bill up

promptly, to move it to full committee and to the Senate floor and

let us get this program underway. It is long overdue and badly

needed. And I will close again in thanking you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN K. HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Steve Hall,

and I am executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA),

the largest and oldest collection of public water agencies in California. ACWA’s members are responsible for 90% of the water delivered in the state—our smallest

member serves fewer than 50 people, and our largest serves 17 million urban southern Californians. My testimony today is intended to illustrate a looming water crisis

that is waiting for California and the western United States. It’s a real crisis, and

one that we can go a long way toward preventing with the bill before you now, Senator Feinstein’s S. 976.

By all accounts, California is an engine of economic growth that provides momentum for neighboring western states and the nation. California is home to 11 percent

of America’s population, accounts for 12 percent of our gross domestic product, 50

percent of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, and serves as a research and development haven for high technology. California does all this with roughly 76 million

acre-feet of water that is captured for human uses every year, or about 35 percent

of all the water that falls on the state annually.

But California’s contribution to the national economy is increasingly held hostage

to an unstable water supply. New environmental regulations governing the allocation of water, layered atop progressively more stringent federal drinking water

standards, are placing increasing demands on existing dams, canals and treatment

facilities that in most cases were built decades ago. Too often, federal mandates dictating the quality or use of water have not been accompanied by the investments

necessary to make those goals possible. At the same time, the inevitably of drought

looms always on the horizon, threatening to further turn the screws on a tightening

regulatory vise.

We’ve seen this type of scenario before. In the years leading up to California’s cur- rent energy crisis, the state’s construction of new power generation and transmission facilities ground to a halt. A surplus of power enjoyed during the mid-1990s

evaporated into a sharp electricity deficit last summer. Since then, California has

had to struggle to keep the lights on, and while energy supplies are improving, the

entire west is paying the price for this inaction. We run the same risk with water,

with far more dire results. Fortunately, we have a bill before you today that will

provide a good part of the investment needed to avert a near certain crisis.

II. OVERVIEW OF CALFED AND S. 976

Beginning in the mid 1990s, Senator Feinstein worked with then-Governor Wilson

and later Governor Davis to develop a partnership between California and Washington to address the problem of growing water shortages. That partnership came to

be known as CALFED.

CALFED is a collaborative water effort undertaken by 19 state and federal resource agencies with jurisdiction in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta. It’s mission is ‘‘to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the

Bay-Delta System.’’ The Bay-Delta region, referred to as CALFED’s ‘‘solution area,’’ forms the hub of our water delivery system, and provides water to 23 million urban

51

and rural Californians. It irrigates several million acres of farmland, which produce

a significant portion of the national food supply. The Bay-Delta is a resource base

for the entire western U.S.

Founded in 1995, CALFED first received federal funding in 1996 under a threeyear, $430 million authorization to authorize the development of the full CALFED

plan. This bill authorizes the implementation of that plan. The plan is focused on

bringing water demand and supply into balance, restoring the ecosystem and conveyance capacity of the state’s most important watershed and improving source

water quality for over two-thirds of the state’s residents.

Why is that important beyond California? Because, the CALFED Program offers

benefits for the entire western United States. First, because CALFED restores an

ecosystem of national and international importance. The Bay-Delta is a central corridor for migrating birds on the pacific flyway, and supports more than 750 species

of fish, mammals, and birds, many of them threatened or endangered. This fragile

ecosystem is as significant as the Everglades, Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay,

where similarly broad state-federal projects have moved forward with bipartisan

Congressional support.

Second, if California is to solve its intractable water problems—problems with

ample potential to spill over into neighboring states—it must begin with the BayDelta. Within the complexities and competing ideas for how best to implement

CALFED, there lies a genuine opportunity for Congress and the state to turn an

environmental crisis into a lasting regional success.

There are many more reasons for the federal government to take a leadership role

in the Bay-Delta, ranging from compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act

to the regulatory objectives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is an area where

government can do its best work; to prevent a water crisis, to restore the environment, and foster cooperative relationships between the state, local and federal governments. The federal government is also a major stakeholder in the outcome of

CALFED, since it operates the single largest water project in the state—the Central

Valley Project.

III. URGENCY OF CALFED

Efforts to resolve California’s water problems are always going to be accompanied

by controversy. There are too many interests, too many local and regional problems,

and too few funds for any effort to please all parties all of the time. That is what

makes leadership so essential to making real progress in the arid west.

The millions of people streaming to California each year from other states and

abroad are not going to wait for the perfect water pact to be settled before they

make the state their home. The demand for food does not taper off while farmers

consider uncertain water supplies. Floods will not wait for Delta levees to reach

total readiness. California will have 15 million more people before CALFED’s plan

is fully implemented, and none of these factors can wait while we try to craft the

perfect bill and the perfect Program.

They won’t wait, and neither will Congress. Several times during the past decade,

Congress and the President have approved sweeping new drinking water quality

standards—on arsenic, radon, perchlorate, cryptosporidium, and other water contaminants. As more is known about elements within our drinking water, policymakers and the people you represent aren’t waiting to demand water of consistently

higher quality, even at a consistently higher cost. Programs like CALFED are established to help address these health issues, and accommodate the increases in supply

that are necessary to improve water quality.

In the years since construction of the Central Valley Project and the State Water

Project, no equally large water project has been contemplated or allowed to move

forward in California. The very few local facilities built since the SWP often required years of public review and inevitable political controversy. Nevertheless, in

the last 30 years, only two regional reservoirs have been built in California, even

though eight million people have come to the state during that time. Meanwhile,

new awareness of environmental water needs and commitments to protect salmon

have further directed away several million acre-feet of water to meet new environmental mandates. This rededication of resources, coupled with rapid population

growth, has vastly destabilized California’s water picture.

The CALFED Program, and all it hopes to accomplish for California, will be at

risk without S. 976, but with infinitely greater consequences, for wildlife, for agriculture, for our cities and for public safety. Five years of planning, and future of

water wars, demand action now.

Much has been written about California’s energy crisis, and how stymied efforts

to expand the state’s water supply portend a crisis of even greater proportions for

52

California water. ACWA agrees wholeheartedly with that analogy, and has worked

hard to bring that message to Congress. Today, the Energy and Natural Resources

Committee can decide whether to prevent a crisis, or end up responding to it two

or three years down the road. We believe S. 976 and the CALFED Program is the

solution. We urge you to work with Senator Feinstein in assuring its passage.

ACWA is committed to assisting in that effort.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Hall.

Mr. Somach.

STATEMENT OF STUART L. SOMACH, PARTNER,

SOMACH, SIMMONS AND DUNN, SACRAMENTO, CA

Mr. SOMACH. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I will answer your

question, I guess, as to who I am here representing, first. It is

probably a good idea.

I actually have been asked and have somewhat the interesting

task of representing two disparate client bases. The first is northern California. As you are aware, I am the general counsel of the

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the largest agricultural water district in northern California.

GCID supports the CALFED process, believes that S. 976 is a

really good bill. We support it. We think it is a good foundation for

further discussion as we move through the legislative process.

But I also am here representing districts located on the west side

of the San Joaquin Valley, the folks that have been referred to several times in terms of the assurance language. And as I will focus

on a little bit in a moment, the west side San Joaquin Valley landowners with respect to both CALFED and S. 976 have contrasting

views of those processes and the legislation from those of my clients in Northern California and GCID.

I wanted to note before I get into the substance of the legislation

as it reflects to those two client bases, another client that I represent—because I think it is, in fact, most relevant to what is going

on here. We have heard these clients referred to often today, but

I represent the Klamath Project Water Users in southern Oregon

and northern California.

I am lead litigation counsel for them in litigation challenging

what I consider to be an unfortunate and inappropriate decision of

the United States to reduce to essentially zero the water supplies

to the Klamath Project farmers.

And I raise this representation here because it has made me

keenly aware on a very personal level of the disaster that can accompany Federal regulatory decision-making if we do not adequately address environmental and water supply problems in a

timely and appropriate manner.

The Klamath experience teaches, among other things, that we

cannot just nibble away at the edges of a problem, but rather we

must address them directly, affirmatively if we are going to achieve

success.

And in this context, to the extent that my comments at times are

blunter than perhaps I ought to be, it comes directly from the horrible disaster and agony that I am in—and I only am doing it in

a representational manner. I am not the farmers that are experiencing the hardships that exist on the Klamath today.

Let me move to GCID first. And I would just simply say that in

general because of its location, because of the seniority of its water

53

rights, GCID has enjoyed sufficient water supplies to allow it to

provide irrigation water to lands within the district.

We have not suffered shortages in the normal and ordinary way

that folks south of the Delta have experienced shortages. Nonetheless and in spite of that favored position, we know first-hand what

these regulatory limitations can do.

We were the first, and for awhile, the only district to ever be

shut down because of Endangered-Species-Act-related limitations.

It had to do with faulty fish screens. We were shut down entirely.

Thank heavens, working closely with State and Federal agencies

pursuant to authority, cost-sharing, appropriations that you assisted us in obtaining over the last 10 years, we are done with

what is now the world’s largest fish screen at the cost of about $80

million of State, Federal and GCID monies.

And it is that experience that we have learned from, that in spite

of good water supply fortune, we must be concerned about the larger problems, both environmental and water supply that exists within the State. And as a consequence, that is what our support of

CALFED and S. 976 derives from.

And as you know in that context, we have worked closely with

the northern California Water Association. And we have been

working hard in terms of developing what we call integrated water

supply management programs, ones where we take the entire

water resource mix that we have available to us and we put them

together. We use conjunctive use, surface water, stored water, and

in terms of trying to meet first the Sacramento Valley’s needs for

water and then hopefully environmental and south of Delta water

needs also.

The idea is if we can better manage and utilize our water supply

in the northern part of the State, we ought to be able to build and

increase the pie. That is what we did. That is how we resolved

what could have been very contentious litigation first before the

State Water Resources Control Board and then before the courts,

when we resolved through an agreement with a broad base of

water users, including the State and Federal projects, through the

Phase Eight Agreement, a management scenario that looks toward

building projects as opposed to fighting over scarce water supplies.

Integral to that solution is the Sites Reservoir Project that the

Senator mentioned earlier. And I appreciate the detail, in fact, that

you have in mind with respect to what that project is and what it

does.

Noticing my time, let me turn quickly to the assurances associated with the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. I heard Senator

Burns talk about those assurances, and I was representing the

whole of the Central Valley Project Water Association back in 1992.

Those promises were made personally. They were made to the

landowners. They were made within the litigation—legislation.

Those promises, to date, have never ever been achieved.

If there is a frustration with this issue, it is not one that is derived from anything other than the fact that this is not a clean

slate that you are legislating on; it is one that begins at least back

to 1992, where the west side was essentially getting 100 percent

of supply. And today, after those promises, the west side is at

about 45 percent of supply.

54

We have looked at the language—the new language that you

have proposed, and I think you mentioned the one comment that

was provided to you, that the language ‘‘pursuant to’’ would make

that language acceptable to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley

and would shift our non-opposition but non-support of the legislation to one where we could honestly support that legislation.

I have heard a lot about mandates here. I am not certain that

there is anything in any of the legislation that mandates anything.

What we do think though is that the assurances, however you

characterize them, ought to be moved out of the findings provision

in the bill and made a substantive portion of the legislation, like

other——

Senator FEINSTEIN. We did that. That is what somebody is—was

referring to earlier.

Mr. SOMACH. That is right.

Senator FEINSTEIN. We did it at the Governor’s request actually

and moved it into the substance of the bill.

Mr. Somach, we are going to run out of time——

Mr. SOMACH. Yes, ma’am. I’m sorry.

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Because—but let me—you know,

you are tough lawyer. I know that. Having said that, I wish you,

while you are here, Richard Moss and the others could sit down

with Patrick Wright on this language.

We are trying to be within the record of decision. We are trying

not to have a lawsuit challenging it. I know the Governor’s feelings

on it very well, because I talked with him before the implementation plan was announced on it. We just need to find a way.

And so if I could ask Patrick: Would you sit down with both

sides—I think Birminghan is here—is here somewhere too—and

see if you can get something that follows the ROD that isn’t going

to be litigated and give me that language. Is that agreed?

Mr. WRIGHT. We will do everything we can to try to do that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, you hedged.

[Laughter.]

Senator FEINSTEIN. The answer is ‘‘Yes, Senator.’’

[Laughter.]

Mr. WRIGHT. We will be there. We will be there with them.

Whether they will agree, that is——

Mr. SOMACH. We want to fix the problem. We will be there also,

Senator.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Thank you. And thank you very

much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Somach follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STUART L. SOMACH, PARTNER, SOMACH, SIMMONS & DUNN,

SACRAMENTO, CA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Stuart Somach. I

am a water rights and environmental lawyer representing clients West-wide. In particular, and in the context of this testimony, I am General Counsel for the GlennColusa Irrigation District (‘‘GCID’’), the largest agricultural water district in Northern California. GCID supports the CALFED process and believes that S. 976 constitutes a good foundation upon which final legislation can be based.

Also relevant to my instant testimony is my representation of the districts located

on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. As I will discuss below, the views of

Westlands, and other west-side San Joaquin Valley landowners, with respect to both

CALFED and S. 976, contrast with those of GCID.

55

Finally, I must also note that I represent water users within the Klamath Project

in Southern Oregon and Northern California and, in that regard, am lead litigation

counsel for the Klamath Irrigation District, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath

Project Water Users Association and named landowners in litigation challenging the

unfortunate and inappropriate decision of the United States to reduce to essentially

zero the water supplied to Klamath Project farmers.

I raise representation of Klamath Project water users here, even though it is not

directly relevant to CALFED or S. 976, because it has made me keenly aware of

the disaster that can accompany federal regulatory decision-making if we do not

adequately address environmental and water supply problems in a timely and appropriate manner.

The Klamath experience teaches, among other things, that we cannot just nibble

away at the edges of a problem, but rather we must address them directly and affirmatively if we are to achieve success.

GCID/NCWA

As I noted earlier, I am General Counsel for GCID. GCID is the largest agricultural water district in Northern California. GCID also has among the most senior

appropriative water rights on the Sacramento River and holds a water rights settlement contract with the United States. In return for GCID’s acquiescence in the

United States’ diversion of water from the Sacramento River for the Central Valley

Project (‘‘CVP’’), GCID is entitled to 105,000 afa of CVP water.

In general, because of its location and the seniority of its water rights, GCID has

enjoyed sufficient water supplies to allow it to provide irrigation water to lands

within the district. Nonetheless, and in spite of its senior water rights, GCID knows

first hand the impact of federal regulation. GCID was the first district to be enjoined from pumping water through district facilities because of Endangered Species

Act limitations. This occurred when faulty fish screens took endangered winter run

salmon as GCID attempted to undertake normal water diversions.

Though initially attempting to avoid the reality of the problem, GCID ultimately

realized that the situation required affirmative and positive action on its part. Consequently, working closely with state and federal agencies, and pursuant to authority and cost-share funding provided for within the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (‘‘CVPIA’’), a state-of-the-art fish screen was designed, permitted, and constructed. That screen (the largest flat plate fish screen in the world) and associated

facilities will ultimately cost about $80 million. Not even one winter run salmon has

been taken since the district first took affirmative action to address the situation.

I detail this history, at least in part, to explain the context for GCID’s support

of CALFED and the effort evidenced in S. 976. We have learned by experience that

in spite of our good water supply fortune, we must be concerned about the larger

problems, environmental and water supply, that exist within the state.

In this context, GCID works closely with other Northern California water interests through the efforts of the Northern California Water Association (‘‘NCWA’’).

NCWA is a geographically diverse organization, extending from California’s Coast

Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and nearly 180 miles from Redding to Sacramento. NCWA’s members rely on the waters of the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba

and American Rivers, smaller tributaries and groundwater to irrigate nearly

850,000 acres that produce every type of food and fiber grown in the region. Many

of its members, including GCID, also provide water supplies to state and federal

wildlife refuges, and much of this land serves as important seasonal wetlands for

migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and other wildlife.

Over the past years, GCID, working with NCWA and other Northern California

water users, has worked diligently to improve both water supply and environmental

protections within the Sacramento Valley. In this context, they have undertaken

projects which will provide water security not only for Northern California, but for

other regions of California as well.

AN INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY WILL

IMPROVE WATER SUPPLY, QUALITY AND RELIABILITY

GCID and other Northern California water users have committed to help improve

water supply reliability, water quality and environmental benefits. The Sacramento

Valley’s initiative and effort to help protect salmon and other aquatic species is unprecedented and is now recognized as one of the most progressive voluntary salmon

restoration efforts in the United States. Today, more than a dozen NCWA members,

representing over 500,000 acres of irrigable land, have either completed or are in

various stages of developing screens to prevent fish entrainment at their diversions.

This, of course, includes the GCID fish screen I mentioned earlier. Many NCWA

56

members, including GCID, have also initiated far-reaching efforts to refurbish fish

ladders, construct siphons, remove dams, create habitat conservation plans and implement other habitat improvement projects to enhance the environment, while at

the same time improving water supply reliability.

Additionally, GCID and other Northern California water users have embarked on

an integrated water management program that has broad support from water suppliers and local governments throughout the Sacramento Valley. This integrated

program includes these fish passage improvements (fish screens and siphons),

groundwater management, evaluation of the Sites off-stream storage reservoir, flood

protection, water use efficiency programs, potential expanded storage in Lake Shasta, intra-regional water transfers and exchanges, and water shed management.

During the past year this integrated program led to an unprecedented water

rights settlement among water users throughout California. This settlement, now

known as the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement, and the ensuing

integrated water management program, avoided the extremely contentious Phase 8

Bay-Delta water rights proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board.

The parties to the agreement include NCWA, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘USBR’’), the Department of Water Resources (‘‘DWR’’), the federal contractors

in the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, the State Water Contractors,

and the Contra Costa Water District. This proceeding would have pitted these parties from throughout the state against each other. This integrated program will now

serve as the heart of a regional strategy for the Sacramento Valley.

The Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement and integrated water

management program focus on meeting 100% of the water supply demands within

the Sacramento Valley during all year types, both now and into the future. Northern California water users believe that once the full demands within the Sacramento Valley are met, this integrated program will help make water supplies

available for use in and beyond the Bay-Delta to meet water quality standards, and

provide for export water users in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, the

Central Coast, and as assets for the Environmental Water Account (‘‘EWA’’) and

other environmental programs.

The parties to the agreement will, during the next five months, prepare a joint

work plan for short-term Sacramento Valley water management projects to implement the agreement that will describe this integrated program in more detail. Work

plans on longer-term projects will follow.

SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS ARE NOW NECESSARY TO IMPROVE WATER SECURITY FOR THE

SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND CALIFORNIA

To improve water security for the Sacramento Valley, leadership is now critical

to empower regional solutions, provide for infrastructure throughout California and

streamline and reform the regulatory process to accomplish these goals. These efforts are essential and are all dealt with in S. 976. This forms the basis of our support for S. 976.

Empower a Regional Solution for the Sacramento Valley

California history has shown that solutions to water problems in the state have

typically been successful at the local and regional level. Very few solutions fit every

part of our extremely diverse state. There have been few instances when a topdown, one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic policy or law has helped the state or has been

implemented. Instead, California water users are now poised to advance a series of

regional solutions and local partnerships that will serve California’s needs for many

years to come. The integrated program described above is an example of a regional

solution for the Sacramento Valley, but it can only be implemented with state and

federal leadership empowering local interests to take the actions necessary for these

programs to succeed. Any bureaucratic efforts to impose top-down solutions, like

past efforts, are doomed to failure and have the potential to destroy the tremendous

progress that has been made on these regional solutions.

Like the Sacramento Valley integrated program described above, every regional

strategy will include the appropriate mix of infrastructure needs, storage, conveyance, water transfers and exchanges, fish passage improvements, water conservation and efficiency, groundwater management, flood protection, watershed management and environmental improvements. To fully empower these regional solutions

requires state and federal funding and the regulatory streamlining necessary to implement these programs.

Streamline and Reform the Regulatory Process

With nearly 18 federal and state agencies under the respective executive branches

that dictate California water policy, it is critical to coordinate and ultimately

57

streamline the work of the numerous agencies with jurisdiction over water resources

in California.

The framework to create CALFED in June 1994 called for cooperation and collaboration between the federal and state agencies that oversee water in California.

It is essential that these agencies continue to work together in this manner. Over

the past seven years, CALFED has evolved from a concept to streamline agency efforts to a massive bureaucratic program. For CALFED to be successful as it transitions from a planning program to an implementation agency, it must move from a

top-down bureaucratic organization to an organization that facilitates and fosters a

series of regional strategies with local control and governance. Most notably, it must

streamline the regulatory process to assure that these programs will be implemented. Specific examples include the facilitation of intra-regional water transfers

and exchanges and expedited permitting by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Significantly, this means that CALFED and its member agencies will serve in a

more limited, albeit more effective, role to advance water and environmental policy

in the state. It also means that CALFED will serve a critical role to coordinate regional strategies to ensure that they fit together in a manner that provides statewide benefits, and also provide a broad-based governance strategy and oversight capability to ensure appropriate and efficient implementation of all CALFED program

elements.

Sites Reservoir

S. 976 also recognizes the need for study and assessment of ‘‘north-of-Delta storage.’’ This, of course, is a positive and essential element of S. 976. It is generally

recognized that the fundamental water supply and environmental problems that

currently face California cannot be properly addressed without the addition of surface water storage. In this context, Sites Reservoir was identified in the Record of

Decision (‘‘ROD’’) as a critical element which should be pursued, along with local

partners within Northern California, and that final decisions with respect to its feasibility and authorization should be made not later than 2004.

Sites Reservoir, when constructed, will not only add generally to the overall state

water supply but, operated in an integrated fashion, will allow Northern California,

the CVP and State Water Project to better maximize the ability to fully utilize

water resources available to them. In this context, GCID, USBR, the Department

of the Interior and other state, federal and local interests executed, as provided for

in the ROD, a Memorandum of Understanding to proceed with analysis and environmental review of the Sites Reservoir in order to allow for decisions on final authorization by 2004.

S. 976 could be improved through more specific reference to Sites Reservoir, as

is done in the ROD, instead of the generalized ‘‘north-of-Delta storage’’ language

currently utilized in the bill. Moreover, the addition of a time frame for analysis

ending in 2004 would also make S. 976 more consistent with the ROD.

Implementation of the Record of Decision

Much work was done by CALFED in preparation of the ROD. That progress

should not be lost. As a consequence, S. 976 would be improved by clarifying that

the project alternative screening process provided for in the ROD will be adhered

to and that one CALFED program element will not be treated as an alternative to

another CALFED program element. Again, among other things, this will allow the

full integration of all water supply alternatives, maximizing the full utilization of

the water resource.

Conclusion with Respect to GCID/NCWA

While GCID/NCWA believe that language with respect to Sites Reservoir and

project element alternatives analysis could be strengthened, they, nonetheless, fully

support S. 976.

Westside San Joaquin Valley

As with GCID/NCWA, the west side of the San Joaquin Valley view of CALFED

and S. 976 is forged by circumstance and experience. Unfortunately, the west side

of the San Joaquin Valley cannot support S. 976 in its present form. As you know,

west side agricultural water users are among the south-of-Delta Central Valley

Project agricultural contractors which, as acknowledged by the California Water Future, A Framework for Action, have been ‘‘disproportionately affected by recent regulatory actions’’ constraining operations of the state’s water projects. Critical to the

west side’s support of the Framework for Action was its commitment that the normal year water supply for south-of-Delta CVP agricultural contractors would be increased by fifteen percent, to sixty-five to seventy percent, with comparable improveVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
58

ments in other water year types. The west side’s support for the Framework for Action was also predicated on assurances by Governor Gray Davis and then Secretary

of the Interior Bruce Babbitt that they, along with other interested parties, would

be allowed to participate in preparation of the Record of Decision to implement the

Framework document. This was important to west side contractors because there

were numerous ambiguities in the Framework for Action that created doubt that the

water supply improvements described by the document could be accomplished.

Notwithstanding these assurances, west side agricultural and other interested

parties were excluded from the process that produced the CALFED Record of Decision. Rather than clarifying ambiguities in the Framework for Action, the ROD created additional impediments to implementation of CALFED Program elements intended to improve south-of-Delta CVP agricultural contractor supplies. In addition,

many of the program elements described in the Framework for Action and ROD, if

implemented, will further reduce water supplies for south-of-Delta CVP agricultural

contractors. Among these are proposals to build increased storage in the upper San

Joaquin River watershed to capture flood flows that would otherwise be diverted by

the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors under their historic water rights.

When these flows are diverted by the Exchange Contractors, demand on CVP Delta

facilities is reduced, and more water can be supplied to south-of-Delta CVP agricultural contractors.

For these reasons, west side agricultural contractors have consistently stated that

their support of any CALFED authorization legislation would be contingent on the

legislation assuring that the water supply commitments made in the Framework for

Action will be accomplished.

Westside agricultural contractors have been active participants in the CALFED

Program from its inception because they hoped that the Program would restore to

them the water reallocated to the environment under the Bay-Delta Accord, Endangered Species Act, and the CVPIA. Westside agriculture maintains that hope. However, it views authorization of the CALFED Program from the perspective of a water

agency to whom promises were made in 1994 when it voluntarily loaned 250,000

acre-feet of its water supply to CALFED agencies for restoration of the Bay-Delta

Estuary. When then Secretary Babbitt signed the Bay-Delta Accord on behalf of the

United States, he stated: ‘‘A deal is a deal, and if it turns out there’s a need for

additional water, it will come at the expense of the federal government.’’ Interior

abrogated this guarantee within two years. As the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service determined additional water required for protection and enhancement of the

Bay-Delta Estuary and species dependent on the Estuary, the water was taken from

south-of-Delta CVP agricultural contractors. As things currently stand, west side agricultural contractors are only receiving forty-five percent of supply.

We are mindful of S. 976’s inclusion of south-of-Delta assurance language within

its findings. If history had been other than it has been, this language might have

been sufficient. However, every time Congress has addressed this issue, it has done

so in a similar manner, leaving the accomplishment of the promises contained within the legislation to the discretion of federal agencies. In each case, those agencies

have exercised their discretion to either ignore the findings or, worse, to somehow

justify taking more water away from the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. It

is in this context that the west side of the San Joaquin Valley cannot support S.

976 as it is currently written.

Conclusion With Respect to West Side of San Joaquin Valley

The west side cannot support, but does not oppose, S. 976. The west side, however, would support S. 976 if the assurance language found within S. 976’s findings

were made a substantive provision of the legislation. This, of course, could and

should be done to make clear that fulfilling these assurances is a mandate must be

undertaken in a manner that does not adversely affect the water supplies of other

CVP contractors.

CONCLUSION

My view, consistent with what I have testified to above, is that CALFED and S.

976 are good things. As noted above, GCID supports CALFED and S. 976. Bluntness

in pointing out what could and should be done to make both CALFED and S. 976

work better derives from the brutal experience of the Klamath Project. There we

learned that a failure to fully address the whole of a problem in a timely manner

only makes ultimate resolution more difficult or impossible.

We have here the opportunity to avoid a Klamath disaster for the bulk of California. In addition to what is contained within S. 976, it should also be more specific

with respect to Sites Reservoir, insure integrated water management through clarifying language with respect to program element alternatives, and provide solid subVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
59

stantive assurances to agricultural water users on the west side of the San Joaquin

Valley.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Cunneen.

STATEMENT OF JIM CUNNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SAN

JOSE SILICON VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SAN JOSE,

CA

Mr. CUNNEEN. Thank you very much, Senator.

Is there any language that cannot be litigated in this society? I

do not know. But thank you for including our voice in this hearing

and the opportunity to appear before you today.

I am Jim Cunneen. I am the CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley

Chamber of Commerce. We represent nearly 2,000 businesses

throughout the full spectrum of the economy in the San Jose Metropolitan area, so small retailers, small manufacturers, mid-level

service firms and large high-tech employers that have built Santa

Clara Valley’s resilient economy.

And I want to commend you for your conduct today in leading

this meeting. It is a unique skill to be able to bring so many different groups together and do so skillfully and still stand for

progress. And that means sometimes alienating certain groups. It

is a difficult task.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Cunneen, I have had my moments.

Mr. CUNNEEN. Yes.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will tell you that. Some of the people at the

table have witnessed them.

Mr. CUNNEEN. As a former State legislator, I have had my frustrations, too. But I want to express our organization’s support for

your efforts and your bill as introduced.

I have not had a chance to read all of the amendments, but we

understand legislation is a work in progress. And to stay true to

the record of decision will take real political skill on your part, and

we stand ready to stand with you in that.

We would urge you, though, to not stray too far from your original bill and continue to insist on the level playing field.

I remember when we put the initiative on the ballot to fund a

number of important water projects. Frankly, it was very difficult

to get Republican votes at the time, because the funding was all

for essentially environmental mitigation projects.

There was no funding for storage projects. And I remember working closely with Governor Davis and in the end of the day providing the Republican votes, putting that together with him for the

two-thirds majority on that issue with a new plan to provide some

storage funding in our State budget, the last State budget that I

had served with.

So I know how difficult it is, but the record of decision is very

clear about storage and conveyance elements and I am glad to hear

your strong voice for that, as well, today. And I feel very comfortable in the direction that you are moving.

I am here mostly to tell you today that our region will continue

to be a high-tech and manufacturing leader, but it cannot do so

without a clean and stable water supply. And that factor is an absolute prerequisite for future growth.

60

And simply put, there is a lot at stake. We could fracture a community with the Nation’s largest high-tech presence in a number

of jobs and with a combined high-tech payroll of $56 billion, with

$22 billion of that in the city of San Jose alone.

From the business perspective, it is very, very clear. If we are

perceived by others as a region that is water short, in addition to

the high cost of living, the traffic, the other things that burden the

Bay Area, it will be difficult for us to sustain the businesses that

complement the high-tech and biotech industrial base that is important to our nation’s future and its standing in the global marketplace as well.

We believe that the California and the Federal Government can

find a way to assure residents and prospective businesses and the

environmental community that we can successfully handle those

issues in balance if we stick close to the knitting if you—as you

have insisted on in this hearing, through phase one and the record

of decision.

So we think your leadership is essential in that process. We

would like you to keep your focus on a couple of key areas. One,

Federal investments in the Delta have to be increased. There really

have been no substantial investments for many decades in that infrastructure.

It is at the center of our water delivery system. And while the

people of California did pass Prop 13 and I gave you a sense of

some of the story of how that came together, it does—this legislation has to keep the level playing field in mind for storage and conveyance elements, because that was not in there.

Two, we believe that the CALFED process must also include—

if you do not include the storage elements, the point I want to

make is that we are going to continue to rely on our allotment of

the California—or Colorado River allotments.

We always exceed what is California’s allotment. And without

those new storage facilities specifically delineated in the bill and

with strong—whether we call it preauthorization language or

whether we call it expedited process—we need to stay very clear

and specific on those issues.

So let me just conclude by saying we want to offer our committed

support to this effort. We stand ready and our industry leaders

that make up our Chamber of Commerce, that is high-tech CEO’s,

but also the business supply chain, stand ready to support your efforts as well.

I have talked to many of them. What they want desperately is

for us to avoid another energy crisis. They see CALFED and your

efforts as one way to show that we have a plan in place, that there

is light at the end of the tunnel, and that California can sustain

its economic prosperity and leadership in the world.

Boy, I will tell you, the energy crisis will pale by comparison if,

in fact, there is a severe water shortage. We fear the dry year when

it could impact our manufacturing process. So we would implore

the U.S. Senate and the House to act very quickly on your legislation. And anything we can do in follow up to the hearing to bring

parties together, we stand ready to do so.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunneen follows:]

61

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM CUNNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SAN JOSE SILICON

VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SAN JOSE, CA

Chairman Dorgan, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today. My name is Jim Cunneen, and I am President and CEO

of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce. I am here to express my organization’s support for Senator Feinstein’s S. 976, a measure to re-authorize the

CalFed Bay-Delta Program and provide the federal appropriation necessary for its

implementation.

The Chamber of Commerce represents a diverse network of small retailers, small

manufacturers, mid-size, service-sector firms and large high tech enterprises—companies that have together created Silicon Valley’s resilient economy. Representing

nearly 2,000 companies, our Chamber is the largest non-profit organization representing the entire supply chain of business enterprises throughout the San Jose

Metropolitan Area.

Even before the Silicon Valley became a household name, our members have been

a part of the region’s ups and downs. After years of expansion, the high tech ‘dot

com’ economy has been a volatile one in recent months. And while the media accounts can sound pretty grim, we’re more confident than ever that Silicon Valley’s

technological revolution is far from over, and that our best days lie ahead.

I’m here today to tell you that our region can continue to be a high-tech and manufacturing leader, but it cannot do that without a clean, stable water supply. This

factor is an absolute prerequisite for future growth. Simply put, if reliability and

water quality problems in the Bay-Delta are not resolved, we could fracture a community with the nation’s largest high-tech presence and number of jobs, with a combined high-tech payroll of $56 billion, with $22 billion of that in San Jose alone.

California and the federal government can find a way to assure residents and prospective businesses that the environmental and water supply challenges in the BayDelta can be successfully handled. The San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce believes that S. 976 and CalFed Program are the best, most comprehensive

way to do that.

From the business perspective its straightforward: If we are perceived by others

as a region that is water short (in addition to high cost of living, traffic congestion,

and other issues), it will be difficult to be able to sustain the businesses that complement the high-tech and biotech industrial base that is so important to our nation

and its standing in the global marketplace.

We believe your subcommittee and policymakers at both the state and federal

level must address these key areas:

• Federal investments in the Delta must be increased. The Delta is at the center

of our water delivery system. While the people of California passed Proposition

13 in March 2000 providing nearly $2 billion, no new federal money was allocated in the last session of Congress. Only with new federal investment in this

priority area can the Delta be restored to deliver on its dual purpose—transporting water while maintaining a healthy ecosystem that minimizes the new

listings of species.

• The quality of water deliveries from the Bay-Delta must be improved. Contaminants, both natural and man-made, inhibit the work of CalFed’s ecosystem program, and threaten high-tech manufacturing throughout our region.

• Any solutions within the CalFed process must include storage and conveyance

elements. While the Phase II Record of Decision and EIR do include a call for

surface storage, it lacks any specifics. This is a crucial element to any fair, balanced plan.

I am here to tell you that S. 976 takes all of these critical factors into account.

The industries and economic success of San Jose are radiating outward. In my

area, 77 percent of all households have a computer, and the national figure is increasing. But if the success of Silicon Valley—in manufacturing, research and quality of life—are to take hold in other western communities, the state must improve

the ecosystem and water management infrastructure of the Bay-Delta. I cannot

stress enough the importance of water to the fulfillment of our promising future,

and I cannot stress enough the importance of CalFed.

Environmental restoration and an enhanced water supply are not mutually exclusive goals. They are attainable, but can only be realized with your support for S.

976 and the work of CalFed.

I want to offer you our committed support for efforts to reauthorize the CalFed

Program. While it has met with its share of controversy, CalFed still provides the

best hope to ensure a reliable, clean water supply in an equitable fashion for the

Silicon Valley—and all of California. You are to be commended for holding this

62

hearing and for fostering an atmosphere of cooperation among the various sectors

of the state’s economy and major business and environmental stakeholders. Your

continued leadership will be essential to create the positive political will to address

the water supply problems facing California. Please be a part of those solutions by

supporting S. 976.

Thank you.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Cunneen. I appreciate that.

Mr. Pace.

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. PACE, CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN

WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA

Mr. PACE. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Feinstein and

the other distinguished members of the committee, I would like to

thank you for this opportunity to speak today about S. 976, the

California Ecosystem Water Supply and Water Quality Improvement Act.

I am Phillip Pace, chairman of the board of the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California. We provide supplemental

water to 17 million people in southern California through our 26

member agencies.

High quality, reliable water is the life blood of Southern California’s $750 billion economy. Metropolitan supports S. 976 and we

commend you, Senator Feinstein, for introducing it.

California, like other Western States, struggles with its water resources, striving to balance urban, agricultural and environmental

needs. As the largest contractor of California’s State Water Project,

which provides water via the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin

Bay-Delta, Metropolitan has a measured stake in the outcome of

this process.

The Bay-Delta is the heart and lungs of California’s water supply. Besides providing the drinking water for two-thirds of the

State, the Bay-Delta nourishes a substantial portion of California’s

farms.

It is the State’s most important fishery habitat and home to more

than 10,000 species of migratory fowl. In short, it is a national ecological treasure closely tied to California’s economic health.

S. 976 gives us the means to preserve that treasure, while benefitting all of the Western States. I believe it is one of the most important pieces of water environmental resource management legislation that has ever been proposed.

Today, I will focus my remarks on just three issues: First, water

quality; second, the need for a CALFED plan to assure our investments in local water resource development is successful; and third,

the shifting of California to integrated resource planning.

Metropolitan is committed to finding lasting ways to improve the

reliability and quality of water supplies, while restoring the environment.

These reasons are simple. Water quality affects the health and

safety of all of our customers. Improvements in water quality are

critical to reducing the cost of water treatment and delivery. And

improvements in water quality determine whether the billions of

dollars already invested in local reuse, conservation and ground

water replenishment programs will succeed.

63

The better our Bay-Delta water source is in quality, the more efficiently we can use the water that we receive from the Colorado

River.

Metropolitan’s resource plan calls for doubling our efforts in recycling and ground water production. This is simply not possible

without reducing the threat of salinity in the Delta water. The increase of salinity from Delta water will degrade our local ground

water basins and impede efforts to recycle and reuse these limited

supplies. Salinity, as many of you know, is already an issue, a big

issue in the Colorado River.

During the last decade, Metropolitan and its members have committed over $8 billion to resolve Delta issues, to better manage

local water resources and to assure that California can live within

its 4.4 million acre-foot allocation of water from the Colorado River.

These objectives, however, really need a CALFED plan that coordinates efforts on a local, a State and a national level.

On a recent trip to northern California to meet with agricultural

interests, I was part of several discussions that centered on resolving local needs while assuring a State-wide supply of high quality

water.

Water policy makers recognize that the health of the economy

and the environment are tightly linked, and that there are benefits

to this integrated approach.

S. 976 provides encouragement of local and regional partnerships. It requires balanced supply and ecosystem improvements.

Just a decade ago, California endured, as we all know, a scorching 6-year drought. Then because of aggressive water—since then,

because of aggressive water management programs, we have averted further water-related crises, so far.

The future of California depends on continuing this progress. The

California—the CALFED legislation is really a step in the right direction.

I urge you to move this legislation forward for the benefit of California and for the Nation. And I would like to thank you on behalf

of the Metropolitan Water District for all of your hard work. Thank

you very much, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pace follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. PACE, CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN WATER

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, other distinguished members of the Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding S. 976, The California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality Improvement Act. I am Phillip

Pace, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California. Metropolitan provides supplemental water supplies to the economy of Southern California. Our service area encompasses more than 5,200 square

miles and serves the needs of 17 million people through 26 member agencies. High

quality, reliable water supplies are the lifeblood of Southern California’s $750 billion

dollar economy.

METROPOLITAN SUPPORTS SENATE BILL 976

First, I would like to express Metropolitan’s strong support for S. 976 and commend the leadership and commitment that Senator Feinstein demonstrated through

the introduction of this legislation.

For decades, California, like other western states, has struggled with conflict over

its water resources, striving to find balanced solutions for its urban and agricultural

economies and its environment. We recognize that Metropolitan has a major stake

64

in the outcome of this process. We are the largest contractor of California’s State

Water Project, which provides water to the Northern and Southern California urban

economies and to the state’s vast agricultural economy. Additionally, Metropolitan

relies on the Colorado River, along with other California agencies and the other six

Colorado River Basin states.

The CALFED Framework agreement of June 2000 and the subsequent Record of

Decision in August are a significant breakthrough in western water policy. As recently described in briefing materials developed by the California Bay-Delta Urban

Coalition, the CALFED Bay-Delta program introduces innovative approaches to

meet the needs of both the economy and the environment. This legislation not only

serves California, but also our nation’s interests. It implements a program that

assures comprehensive achievement of regional health, economic and environmental

program objectives. It also preserves a national ecological treasure, ensures necessary infrastructure for high-quality and reliable water supplies for our residents,

industries and farms, and provides environmental benefits to California and other

western states. I believe it is one of the most important pieces of water and environmental resource management legislation in history of the western states.

I would like to focus my remarks today on three issues: water quality; the need

for a CALFED Plan to assure our investments in local water resource development

will be successful; and, third, the changing paradigm in California to an integrated

resource approach.

WATER QUALITY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY!

As a local businessman in Los Angeles County, I have been privileged to serve

on Metropolitan’s Board of Directors for the past five years, the past three as Chairman. During my tenure, our Board has made a commitment to find lasting ways

to improve the reliability and quality of that supply, while restoring California’s environment.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the programs associated with the

CALFED process must result in better water quality for our customers. The reasons

are simple and the arguments credible:

• Water quality affects the health and safety of all our customers;

• Improvements in water quality are critical to reducing the cost of water treatment and delivery;

• Improvements in water quality will determine whether or not the billions of dollars now being invested in local re-use, conservation and groundwater replenishment programs will succeed in the long run; and

• The better out Bay/Delta water source is in quality, the more efficiently we can

use water from the Colorado River, which affects other Western states.

However, increasing public health concerns and drinking water quality regulations have challenged our approaches to providing high quality, low-cost supplies to

Southern California residents.

Over the last decade, while drinking water quality regulations have become increasingly more stringent, little progress has been made to reduce contaminants and

bring source water quality for Delta exporters in line with national averages.

Increasing concentrations of salinity from Delta water also degrade our local

groundwater basins and impede efforts to recycle and reuse our limited supplies.

Metropolitan’s resource plan also calls for doubling recycling and significantly increasing groundwater production. This is simply not possible without reducing the

threat of salinity in Delta water imported into Southern California.

Metropolitan is a nationally recognized leader in funding research and implementing new cost-effective treatment technologies. The technical challenges and costs of

removing contaminants from drinking water supplies can be staggering. Currently,

the best method to control water quality is at the source.

If urban water agencies are forced to abandon quality at the source and instead

rely on alternative treatment technologies, the cost of these alternative technologies

will significantly exceed the cost of conventional treatment.

Senator Feinstein’s legislation will provide assurances that water quality projects,

including those identified as ‘‘complementary actions’’ in the CALFED Record of Decision, are eligible and can effectively compete for funding within the CALFED authorization legislation.

A CALFED PLAN IS ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE OUR LOCAL RESOURCE INVESTMENTS WILL

BE SUCCESSFUL

During the last 10 years, Metropolitan and its member agencies have taken key

policy steps and committed significant funding to resolve issues in the Delta and

65

to enhance our water quality and supply reliability through ‘‘local’’ resource programs. Altogether, the people of Southern California have invested more than $8

billion to better manage local water resources and to assure that California can live

within 4.4 million acre-foot allocation of water imported from the Colorado River.

These objectives, however, cannot be achieved without a successful CALFED plan.

THE CHANGING PARADIGM—INTEGRATED STATEWIDE APPROACH

Over the last few years, Metropolitan’s Board members and I have actively engaged other water policymakers throughout California and the western states, in an

effort to develop new approaches to solving resource conflicts.

On a recent trip to Northern California to meet with agricultural interests, our

discussions centered on resolving local needs while still providing statewide water

supply, water quality, and environmental benefits. What we are seeing through

these discussions is a changing paradigm on how to solve our water resource problems. There is recognition that the health of the economy and environment are inextricably linked, and that resource solutions provide enhanced benefits when resolved

through integrated local and regional approaches.

Senator Feinstein’s legislation provides an excellent opportunity for implementing

lasting solutions to California’s water problems that will benefit all western states

and the nation. S. 976 encourages local and regional partnerships and requires balanced water supply, water quality and ecosystem improvements and measurable

progress in all CALFED Program areas.

CONCLUSION

The energy crisis now gripping our state affords us a unique vantage point to contemplate the potentially severe effects that would ensue if our state were to succumb to a water crisis of similar magnitude. Just a decade ago, California’s citizens

and economy endured the scorching effects of a six-year drought (1987-92). Since

then, thanks largely to aggressive water management programs, we have averted

further water-related crises. The future of California depends upon continuing this

progress through the enactment of legislation to implement the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program.

Your efforts to advance this bill signal leadership in the right direction. We believe the CALFED legislation has the ability to provide dramatic improvements for

multiple beneficiaries.

We at Metropolitan are dedicated to working on developing a workable approach

to implement a balanced CALFED Bay-Delta program.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, members of the subcommittee, I look forward

to working with you and members of the House of Representatives to ensure that

Congress takes the necessary steps to safeguard California’s vital water resources

for all beneficial uses. I urge you to move this legislation forward for the benefit

of California and the national economy and environment.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Pace.

Mr. Davis.

STATEMENT OF GRANT DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I certainly admire

your stamina and your patience and your drive on this.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. As a former staff member of a member of Congress,

I also admire the staff members of the committee that are here sitting through this.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Absolutely.

Mr. DAVIS. So I cannot agree with you more. And also I am privileged to be up here with the distinguished group of colleagues that

work on California water.

My name is Grant Davis. I am the executive director of the Bay

Institute of San Francisco. We are celebrating our 20th year of

working to protect and restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. And I am very proud of that.

66

We have been active over the years in efforts to implement innovative approaches to better manage California’s water supply. The

organization was heavily involved in the development of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

And the Bay Institute was one of the three environmental groups

that actually signed the Bay-Delta Accord. And as you know, the

Bay-Delta Accord was the precursor to CALFED, where we all are

here today.

Our concern in doing this during the whole effort has been that

to reverse a century, over a century, of destruction of the Bay-Delta

environment—and this trend, as we all know, has worsened over

the years—and we still want to maintain the economic and social

benefits derived from managing the water supplies for multiple

uses.

In the interest of time—I noticed that you mentioned that. It is

a big panel today. I want to ask that my remarks be submitted for

the record.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Absolutely.

Mr. DAVIS. And I have condensed my remarks.

I would like to call attention—I have taken the liberty of providing a special CALFED handout. And I think it is very helpful. This

was on our record of decision. It is from the Bay Institute’s point

of view and helps inform your colleagues and staff members.

But what is most telling is the map that puts the projects that

you are discussing in the context of the watershed. And I think you

will find it helpful as a good resource tool.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. So I will put that in the record.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Mr. DAVIS. I wanted to start off by just reminding members of

the committee that we are involved in a tenuous balancing act, and

that the Bay Institute and our environmental colleagues, as well as

everyone here, have been putting in enormous hours over the

years. I would say it is now going on 6 years.

We did reach a tenuous balance in the record of decision. And

there are many, many good points of CALFED. I would say the ecosystem restoration program, a water account, a water efficiency

program, getting into ground water management, we have made

tremendous progress.

But along this theme, just to point out where the concerns continue to arise in the record of decision, many folks are not aware

that there really is over 1 million acre feet of surface storage that

will likely come on line with the three projects that you are talking

about in your bill, which will be the Delta Islands, Los Vaqueros

and Shasta expansions, and plus the bypass south of the Delta.

The environmental water account is something we are very

proud to have contributed toward, helping to bring on a new tool.

But what that also provides—and someone has not mentioned

today—are the assurances to south of the Delta users that there

will be no additional water supply impacts from endangered species

protection measures.

And this year, as you may know, we exceeded the take threefold

on winter-run salmon. So we have a lot of work to do to refine

these tools that we are bringing online. And we are, in the spirit

67

of cooperation, willing to do so, and we are interested in continuing

to improve and refine the process.

So the message for the Bay Institute and hopefully our colleagues here is while we have concerns and any bill authorizing

CALFED, the closer you could make that to the ROD that was

agreed upon and be consistent, the more consensus you have.

And to try and do new things that set a precedent are going to

lead—I can speak for the colleagues that are currently opposing the

legislation. They are about 30 environmental groups, that for the

record, are in opposition, but are willing to work with you. They

basically are looking for principles that would allow us to, in the

spirit of what Congressman Miller and Senator Boxer talked about,

not provide new precedent-setting language that could be litigated

over and over. We are doing our best to stay out of that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRANT DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE BAY INSTITUTE

OF SAN FRANCISCO

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. In particular, Senator Feinstein for the invitation to testify regarding S. 976, The California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water

Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.

My name is Grant Davis. I am Executive Director of The Bay Institute of San

Francisco (TBI), a non-profit organization located just north of the Golden Gate

Bridge. This year, TBI is celebrating its twentieth year working to protect and restore the ecosystems of the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

and the rivers, streams and watersheds tributary to the estuary.

TBI has been very active over these years in efforts to implement innovative approaches to better manage California’s water supply. The organization was heavily

involved in the development of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)

and was also one of the three environmental organizations that signed the historic

Bay-Delta Accord. As you know, the Bay-Delta Accord set new water quality standards and was the precursor to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

Our concern in doing so has been to reverse over a century of destruction of the

Bay-Delta environment—a trend that has worsened catastrophically over the last

two decades—while maintaining the economic and social benefits derived from managing the state’s water supplies for multiple uses.

PUTTING CALFED IN CONTEXT

Prior to providing specific comments regarding S. 976, I feel it is important to provide some context regarding the CALFED Bay-Delta Program:

First, it is important to note that TBI and our environmental colleagues have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy working to help improve and shape the

CALFED program. We sincerely want to see this program succeed in restoring the

ecosystem and improving California’s water supply reliability. We recognize the tremendous complexity of this challenge, the many risks involved, as well as the huge

potential of the CALFED program.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of one of TBI’s publications entitled,

‘‘CALFED Special: A Guide to the Record of Decision’’ because Committee Members

may find it helpful. This report includes a map of the extensive solution area of

CALFED and highlights some of the major program elements contained in the final

plan. I have included these elements in order to demonstrate briefly not only what

the environmental community likes about this plan, but also to make clear just how

much compromise has already occurred in order to strike this tenuous balance and

release the Record of Decision.

Some of the main components of CALFED’s final plan are:

• a promising Ecosystem Restoration Program, which would restore floodplains

and tidal wetlands, acquire water for instream flows and Delta outflows, improve fish passage, and implement hundreds of other actions for endangered

species, habitats and ecosystem improvements;

• creation of a promising but also problematic new Environmental Water Account

(See Environmental Concerns Below);

68

• an innovative Water Use Efficiency Program that would use financial incentives

to promote aggressive urban and agricultural conservation measures and water

recycling;

• recharging the state’s mined aquifers and using groundwater in conjunction

with surface supplies. This requires a coordinated approach to managing

groundwater supplies for their own sake, as well as for conjunctive use. Major

new groundwater storage projects in the Central Valley are an integral element

of CALFED’s approach to water supply reliability. In addition, financial incentives and disincentives would be used to promote completion of groundwater

basin management plans and measurement of groundwater;

• a new Science Program created to ensure that state-of-the-art research and

analysis guide CALFED implementation. Under this approach, actions will be

designed to test competing hypotheses about the most effective management approaches, implementation activities will be monitored, and the results assessed

to help guide future actions. Samuel Luoma, Ph.D., a distinguished Bay-Delta

researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, was hired as

CALFED’s Science Director.

ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN THAT CONCERN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY

• the proposal to add of over one million acre-feet of expensive surface storage

for ill-defined purposes by expanding Shasta and Los Vaqueros Reservoirs, creating new storage on Delta islands, and building a new bypass south of the

Delta.

• Environmental Water Account designed to reduce endangered species take at

the giant state and federal water project pumps. Delta exporters would receive

an unprecedented assurance that there will be no additional water supply impacts from endangered species protection measures.

• a decision to build a controversial new diversion facility on the Sacramento

River (which some contend is the first leg of the Peripheral Canal) if vaguely

defined fishery protection and water quality goals are not being met over the

next few years.

• in increments over the next few years, the State Water Project will be allowed

to use the full, currently unpermitted capacity of its pumps in the South Delta,

which would increase Delta diversions by over 50 percent. Even the new EWA

would not be able to fully mitigate for the additional impacts on endangered

species survival and positive flow conditions from this proposed export-pumping

regime.

THE CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT

OF 2001 (S. 976)

I will not spend a great deal of time on specific language of the current bill, because I understand that negotiations currently underway may result in modified

language. However, I will offer some principles that help inform our assessment of

the bill. While we recognize and commend Senator Feinstein for the improvements

that have been made to S. 976, TBI and the environmental community continue to

have significant concerns with the legislation. As part of my testimony I have included a copy our letter of opposition to the bill which contains the signatures of

over 30 regional, state and national environmental, conservation, and fishing organizations. Clearly there are provisions in this bill that threaten to wreak havoc with

the careful balance that CALFED worked so hard to achieve in August of last year

when it released its Record of Decision.

A similar number of environmental and fishing organizations support H.R. 2404,

the California Water Quality and Reliability Act legislation in the House sponsored

by Rep. George Miller.

Principles to assess a final bill authorizing CALFED. The final bill:

• should be consistent with the CALFED Plan and the Record of Decision.

• assure that any new surface storage facilities offered by CALFED receivefull

Congressional scrutiny after required evaluations are completed. We do not support efforts to eliminate key checks and balances in the congressional review

process by preauthorizing facilities. The costs or the benefits they will deliver

do not justify these facilities. We strongly support the amendment, which eliminates preauthorization language for new water development in favor of establishing a ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ requirement as was provided in the Record of Decision.

• should not go beyond the CALFED plan in assuring deliveries to CVP agricultural contractors. The current bill reads as a finding that orders DOI to impleVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
69

ment the assurances language. If not amended this would likely end up in litigation.

• must not undermine the water rights of more senior water users. As written,

we believe that the bill could undermine the water supplies for the Bay Area,

Southern California and other farmers in the Central Valley. We would recommend the assurances section be pulled from the bill.

• must not promise that taxpayers will provide more water than these districts’

contracts entitle them to. It is unfair that taxpayers must purchase or otherwise

provide water that these contractors are not now entitled to under their contracts.

• must not undermine key decisions regarding environmental protection in the

CALFED plan, which form the foundation for the record of decision. If these are

changed, the EIS and the biological opinions would no longerbe valid. The plan

would be legally vulnerable and politically undermined.

In conclusion, the tensions that exist between competing users of water will be

exacerbated—if we do not more actively promote the tools available to more creatively manage California’s Water supplies. We urge the Committee to help foster

this spirit of creativity by supporting and promoting measures to improve agricultural and urban water use efficiency, increase groundwater banking and conjunctive

use, create water savings from retiring drainage problem lands, and establish new

environmental water assets. By passing CALFED authorizing legislation that more

closely follows the guiding principles outlined above we will then be able to move

forward.

If agreement cannot be reached regarding CALFED legislation this year, the Committee might wish to consider passing a ‘‘clean’’ piece of legislation that is entirely

consistent with the Record of Decision that would just authorize the program for

another year.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity

to provide these comments. I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me respond to that, because I do not

have a problem if we can move the process. But I have now been

here long enough to know the games that can be played to prevent

something from happening.

And this is what concerns me very much. I mean, I have had discussions. I have had environmentalists tell me ‘‘We will never support a new water storage project.’’

Well, you cannot solve the problem without it. So that is the purpose of the whole balanced approach. And I would very much appreciate your input. Work—you know, work with our staff. We

want to be within the ROD.

This is the whole direction. The people who did the drafting of

this took—was to—in essence authorized the ROD so that CALFED

can go ahead.

But I am absolutely determined that it be balanced. I am determined that these things move ahead concurrently. I do not know

who said it earlier, but that once one group gets what they want,

then they stop supporting for the others.

And that is why we have particularly worked so that the ecosystem restoration, environment water account, all of the water

quality, the storage, the infrastructure, all of that moves simultaneously.

I think it is extraordinarily important that we do that, or we end

up spending money and not solving the problem. That is one of my

real worries.

So I appreciate all of your testimony.

Patrick Wright, let me just get—because there is some questions

here that I would like to give you in writing, but one just to get

70

* The program has been retained in subcommittee files.

in the record—and I do not know whether you know the answers

precisely.

What has the Bay-Delta Program expended to date?

Mr. WRIGHT. Let me ask you to turn to the briefing book, if you

have it. If you will look on the table—table two in the back under

funding.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Give me a page.

Mr. WRIGHT. It is page—well, I guess it is an appendix, so there

is no page number. But it is table two.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay.

Mr. WRIGHT. It shows the year one funding of—among all of the

agencies, both those funds that were explicitly labeled CALFED

and those funds from various agencies such as the CVPIA—CVPIA

restoration fund that count towards meeting the CALFED objectives across the board.

What this does not include is the roughly $220 million that were

labeled for CALFED previously through the previous authorization.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you give me a number? What has

CALFED spent to date?

Mr. WRIGHT. I would add $220 million to the number here.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Which number?

Mr. WRIGHT. To the total of—let me just see if there is a——

Senator FEINSTEIN. State subtotal, $528 million?

Mr. WRIGHT. Together with the Federal subtotal of $78 million

would give you the grand total between the State and Federal

agencies for the first year.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. I trust that. Thank you. All right.

We have that here then.

And so the total Federal contributions to date are, if this is correct, $78 million?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Since the record of decision.

Senator FEINSTEIN. $78 million?

Mr. WRIGHT. Right.

STAFF. Last year. I think that is the Federal contribution for last

year.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Last year?

Mr. WRIGHT. Right.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. All right. And the total State contributions?

Mr. WRIGHT. Last year was $528 million.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. And what other contributions

have been made?

Mr. WRIGHT. That is the sum total of all the State and Federal

funding. There were some—because there are matching funds that

go with a lot of these projects, we have a user local subtotal here

that shows $221 million coming in from local communities, because

a lot of these projects are cost-shared.

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. And I would like to enter this

CALFED program into the record.*

I am not going to ask any other questions, but since we have you

all back here, can you go ahead on that assurance language? Can

you also take a look at the expedited review language with my staff

71

and if you have any recommendation, will you let us know, say

within 48 hours?

Mr. WRIGHT. We will all be back here next week for the House

hearing, and we hope to have something by then.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. All right. Thank you.

And thank you very much, gentlemen. I truly appreciate your

being here today. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The hearing is

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(73)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to Additional Questions

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES,

Sacramento, CA, August 10, 2001.

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN,

Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Office Building,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: Attached for your review are the Association of California Water Agencies’ responses to questions posed July 30 by Senators Nighthorse

Campbell and Kyl, relevant to S. 976.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions on this important piece of legislation, and encourage any members of the Committee to contact me if I may provide further information.

Sincerely,

STEPHEN K. HALL,

Executive Director.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS BINGAMAN, CAMPBELL AND KYL

Question 1. The Feinstein bill would authorize certain activities outlined in an August 2000 record of decision (ROD) on the CALFED program. However, why does

this bill not appear to authorize implementation of the ROD in its entirety?

Answer. ACWA believes S. 976 does have the effect of authorizing the full

CALFED Program, by referring to the ROD as its guiding document in the legislation, directing federal agency participation in a governance structure, and by authorizing the full range of program elements within the Bay-Delta Program.

Question 2. How is this going to affect California getting their share of Colorado

River water down to the levels of the 4.4 plan which former Secretary Babbitt set?

Answer. By modernizing California’s water delivery infrastructure, including

water recycling projects throughout the state, S. 976 will enhance the level of selfsufficiency of California’s water supply. The programs authorized in the bill will improve Delta conveyance, thereby improving conditions for Delta export, and reducing

the tensions between fisheries and water supplies. Eased pressure on endangered

species imparts greater operational flexibility to California’s entire network of reservoirs, canals and pumping stations. Under this improved scenario, meeting the obligations of the 4.4 plan will become far less onerous and far more likely.

Question 3. It is proposed that this project will increase California water by 3 million acre-feet. Where is this extra water coming from and is there a chance part of

this water will come from the Colorado River?

Answer. California and its water agencies are committed to moving forward with

the 4.4 plan, and equally committed to living within its 4.4 million acre-foot Colorado River entitlement. The CALFED ROD contains an important balance of water

conservation, recycling, ecosystem restoration and surface storage projects that together increase system-wide flexibility and expand the state’s available water supply. None of the water supply gains contemplated by CALFED are to be realized

through increased diversions from the Colorado River. On the contrary, CALFED

will help to lessen them.

Question 4. If this is not enacted, and since California is still obligated to meet

its requirements in 4.4 plan, what will California have to do to meet its future needs

and how will this affect Colorado water?

74

Answer. The prospect of failure for S. 976 and the resultant consequences for

CALFED are extremely severe. For years now, California’s water system has been

visibly strained by the burdens of growing population, increasing environmental

mandates and looming drought. CALFED was conceived and meticulously planned

to remedy this dangerous situation. If the state and federal agencies participating

in CALFED were to lose the work and momentum that have gone into the program,

there would be an enormous political and social cost. In the short term, California’s

water community would descend into resumed conflict and drawn out litigation. In

the long term, healthy economic growth and environmental progress will all be sacrificed just to meet minimum demands for scarce water.

It is unclear what measures California will have to take in the event of CALFED’s

failure, but meeting obligations under the 4.4 plan would become more difficult. For

these reasons, the federal government must be an active partner in assuring success

for CALFED.

Question 5. With the already existing authorized water projects not being completely funded, like ALP in my home state of Colorado, will CALFED get funding

before these other already authorized projects?

Answer. CALFED first received federal funding in 1997 under the California BayDelta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act of 1996, which authorized a total of $430 million in appropriations for the program over three years. Actual appropriations totaled $220 million. CALFED received no federal funding in

2001, and has stayed alive with funding from the state budget and two multi-billion

dollar California bond measures.

ACWA is keenly aware of the funding backlog for western water projects, and has

been a strong supporter of the ‘‘Invest in the West’’ campaign. This is a coalition

effort among several western water organizations, with the shared mission of securing the Bush Administration’s support for a five-year plan to increase the Bureau

of Reclamation’s budget to $1 billion annually. With more resources devoted to

water development, projects like CALFED and Animus La Plata can move forward

to meet the growing water demands of the arid west. ACWA is committed to working with the Administration and Congress to increase the resources dedicated to

western water management, such that CALFED implementation does not adversely

impact funding for other projects in the west.

Question 6. What are the cost estimates of these CALFED related projects?

Answer. According to figures from the CALFED Program, costs for the first seven

years of program implementation (aka Stage One) are estimated at $8.6 billion.

Question 7. Who is supposed to pay for the projects?

Answer. These costs are to be shared in thirds among the state government ($2.57

billion), federal government ($2.43 billion) and California’s local governments and

assorted agencies ($2.56 billion).

Question 8. CALFED determined that beneficiaries should pay for new surface

storage projects. What water users have agreed to pay full cost for water from these

projects?

Answer. The intent of the CALFED Program is to share costs for program implementation among all of the beneficiaries (the ‘‘beneficiaries pay’’ provision). It is contemplated that the benefits will be identified as part of the detailed feasibility studies to be completed as part of the pre-construction work. At that time it is anticipated that the beneficiaries will agree to pay their part of the costs or the projects

will not go forward.

It is likely that the improvements contemplated by CALFED—similar to federal

infrastructure investments that preceded the program—will provide substantial returns on the initial investment. For example, the federal Central Valley Project

today is the backbone of California’s $27 billion agricultural economy, providing half

of the country’s fruits and vegetables and generating billions in business activity

and trade every year. Infrastructure investments of the type promised by CALFED

will ensure that California continues to be an engine of economic growth for the

west coast and beyond, and its restored ecosystem a resource of national significance.

Question 9. What would the federal government’s share of the cost of these

projects be?

Answer. See answer to question #7.

Question 10. Would that federal investment be repaid?

Answer. Yes. See answer to question #8.

Question 11. Is there a signed cost share agreement for these projects?

Answer. There is currently a cost share agreement between the state and federal

governments. Other cost share agreements will be developed specific to the individual projects.

75

Question 12. Why do these projects need an accelerated process for authorization

that is not conducted for any other water project?

Answer. This is a programmatic authorization, intended to authorize the full program. There will be additional Congressional review of individual projects, both in

the authorizing and appropriating committees, as well as by the full Congress.

In addition, the water supply projects described in S. 976 have already undergone

all required environmental review and documentation. Unlike the ecosystem restoration objectives of CALFED, many of which have already been attained, no water

supply projects have yet moved forward, despite the multi-year planning process behind the ROD and growing water demands. The authorization process outlined in

S. 976 will assure that with proper Congressional review, as additional ecosystem

projects are implemented, water supply projects also make commensurate progress.

This feature is intended to assure balanced progress among CALFED’s four co-equal

objectives.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KYL

Question. Aren’t the ecosystem projects going to be scheduled ahead of water supply projects in the CALFED Program, and if so, what will the incentive be for the

environmental community to support water supply projects once the ecosystem

projects are completed?

Answer. The challenge of maintaining unified support for CALFED has dogged

the program since its inception, particularly on the issue of expanded surface water

storage. Based on past experience, ACWA and its members are extremely concerned

that the environmental community will have no incentive to support water supply

projects if the ecosystem priorities of CALFED are allowed precedence over surface

storage.

For this reason, ACWA has sought assurances that water supply projects will be

able to move forward in concert with CALFED’s sizeable environmental agenda. We

will continue to work with Senator Feinstein and the committee on developing appropriate linkage between ecosystem and water supply priorities within this legislation, which authorizes and directs the CALFED program.

Question. What will this do, good or bad, to California’s plan to live within a 4.4

million a/f annual Colorado River entitlement?

Answer. This legislation, by authorizing the modernization of California’s water

delivery infrastructure, including water recycling projects throughout the state, will

enhance the level of self-sufficiency of California’s water supply. The linkages between ecosystem projects and water supply in this legislation are intended to prevent ecosystem priorities from moving forward while CALFED storage, conveyance

and other program elements become stalled. It is only through balanced implementation of CALFED’s plan that California and the neighboring basin states can have

confidence that California will be able to live within its 4.4 million acre-feet entitlement.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

RESOURCES AGENCY,

Sacramento, CA, August 20, 2001.

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN,

Chair, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the State of California, I am enclosing responses to twelve questions submitted by Senator Campbell (R-CO) regarding Senate Bill 976 introduced by Senator Feinstein (D-CA). These responses were requested in your letters dated July 30, 2001, sent to both Mr. Patrick Wright, Director of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and me. Please consider this letter as the

official response from Director Wright.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If you have further questions or are

in need of additional detail, please contact me at (916) 653-7310 or Director Wright

at (916) 657-2666.

Yours sincerely,

MARY D. NICHOLS,

Secretary for Resources.

[Enclosure]

76

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CAMPBELL

Question 1. The Feinstein bill would authorize certain activities outlined in an August 2000 record of decision (ROD). However, why does this bill not appear to authorize implementation of the ROD in its entirety?

Answer. S. 976 does authorize continued participation by Federal agencies in the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program and Program projects costing less than $10 million.

S. 976 would require the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agency heads

to participate in the administration of the Bay-Delta Program. [§ 4 (c), ‘‘Federal

Role,’’]. The Bay-Delta Program is defined as programs, projects, and activities included in the Record of Decision (§ 2 (4) (B), p. 2, II. 19-20). Further, S. 976 directs

the Federal agencies, subject to availability of funds; to carry out all actions needed

to implement ‘‘Stage 1’’ of the Bay-Delta Program. (p. 12, II. 12-19). Stage 1 is defined as programs and projects planned for the first seven years of the Bay-Delta

Program, as specified in the Record of Decision (§ 2 (19), p. 5, I. 24 through p. 6,

I. 2).

Question 2. How is this going to affect California getting their share of Colorado

River water down to the levels of the 4.4 plan which Babbitt set?

Answer. S. 976 would authorize implementation of the Bay-Delta Program. Implementation of the Bay-Delta Program will involve additional water conservation and

water reclamation activities, thereby reducing demand for Colorado River water

supplies. These actions could reduce overall demand for water supplies in southern

California from all sources, including the Colorado River. Additionally, the BayDelta Program will improve the reliability and quality of water delivered to southern California from the Delta. Improved quality of Bay-Delta supplies will allow further expansion in water reclamation, with attendant reductions in demand for water

from all sources, again including the Colorado River.

In addition to Bay-Delta Program actions, S. 976 proposes a grant and loan program to help finance local agencies’ water supply projects that are not included

within the Record of Decision. (§ 5, beginning on page 33). We anticipate that some

of these projects would increase supplies available to southern California and thus

reduce demand on Colorado River water supplies.

Question 3. It is proposed that the CALFED program will increase California’s

water supply by 3 million acre feet. Where is this extra or new water coming from

and is there a chance that part of this water will come from the Colorado River?

Answer. About 2/3 of the projected additional supplies would come from better use

of existing, developed supplies. The remaining 1/3 would come from construction of

additional storage facilities. None of these additional water supplies will come from

the Colorado River.

The Bay-Delta Program, if fully implemented, could develop up to 2.9 million

acre-feet (MAF) of additional water supplies. Sources include:

690 thousand acre-feet (TAF) from urban conservation

350 TAF from agricultural conservation

310 TAF from water reclamation

600 TAF from improvements in conveyance and water facility operations

900 TAF from expansion in water storage capacity

All of these estimates are subject to further refinement as project-specific studies

are completed.

Water for these additional storage facilities will come from streams and rivers in

the Sacramento-San Joaquin River watershed. Increased storage capacity would be

used to store water during high flow periods for later release during times of need.

The Bay-Delta Program does not include any plans for a net increase in California’s

allocation from the Colorado River.

Question 4. If this bill (S. 976) is not enacted, and since California is still obligated to meets its requirements under the 4.4 plan, what will California have to

do to meet its future needs and how will this affect Colorado water?

Answer. S. 976 would authorize funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

Through implementation of ecosystem restoration programs and water management

actions, the Bay-Delta Program will improve the reliability of existing water supplies exported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to California water-users.

Southern California is home to half of California’s population, and it is more than

60% dependent on imported water supplies. Much of that supply is from the Delta.

Clearly, continued and improved reliability of Northern California exports is imperative.

If S. 976 is not enacted, Southern California water users run a greater risk of reductions in water imported from Northern California. Reductions in Northern California exports would negatively impact the region’s economy. More severely, the reVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
77

sponse might include adoption of new programs to fallow hundreds of thousands of

acres of highly productive farmlands to provide water for urbanized Southern California. With agriculture providing one of every ten jobs in California, the adverse

socioeconomic impacts of this scenario would be widespread and destabilize California’s already depressed agricultural markets. Reduced Bay-Delta exports could destabilize the fragile consensus among California’s users of Colorado River water,

making it difficult to implement the Colorado River Water Use Plan and likely leading to extensive litigation, which could result in a renewal of interstate litigation

before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dissention among the seven Colorado River Basin states would hinder their ability to effectively respond to new claims for use of River water, such as those expressed in pending litigation over extra-territorial application of the ESA to species

in Mexico or those for water for the Mexican delta.

We believe the best approach to avoid negative consequences is Congressional authorization and funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Without implementation of the Bay-Delta Program, through S. 976 or other appropriate legislation, it

will be extremely difficult—perhaps impossible—to ensure that California’s 4.4 plan

will be implemented.

Question 5. With the already existing authorized water projects not being completely funded, like ALP in my home state of Colorado, will CALFED-get funded before other already authorized projects in other states?

Answer. Decisions on Federal funding are the province of Congress. We anticipate

that funding for the Bay-Delta Program will be balanced against other competing

needs, both within the natural resources arena and the wider arena of all Federal

government obligations. We also anticipate that Federal participation in the Program will be authorized this year, and that Congress may wish to appropriate funds

for CALFED-related projects under existing authorities.

Question 6. What are the cost estimates of the CALFED related projects?

Answer. CALFED agencies estimate the total costs for all Bay-Delta Program

Record of Decision Stage 1 actions to be about $8.6 billion.

Some projects would be constructed after Stage 1. Construction costs for these

projects would be in addition to the $8.6 billion figure.

Water supply projects authorized by § 5 of S. 976 would be outside of the Record

of Decision. We do not yet have an estimate of costs for water supply projects that

would be funded under the Water Supply Program (§ 5 of S. 976). These costs would

depend on the number and scope of water supply projects that local agencies wish

to develop.

Question 7. Who will pay for these projects?

Answer. For projects covered by the Record of Decision, the CALFED agencies

have proposed a financing plan that includes about 1/3 of the Program costs to be

covered by the State of California (general revenues and bond revenues), about 1/

3 covered by the Federal government, and about 1/3 covered by other sources, such

as local agency cost-shares and fees and charges on users of Delta resources. The

CALFED agencies have not yet developed recommendations for cost allocations for

specific projects.

For projects funded under the Water Supply Program (§ 5 of S. 976), it is anticipated that costs would be shared between the project sponsors and the Federal government. It is possible that the State of California would also participate in the

funding of these projects. In any case, cost share mandated by S. 976 limits the Federal portion to 50 percent.

Question 8. CALFED determined that beneficiaries should pay for new surface

storage projects. What water users have agreed to pay full cost for the water from

these projects?

Answer. The CALFED agencies have indicated, ‘‘a fundamental philosophy of the

CALFED Program is that costs should, to the extent possible, be paid by the beneficiaries of the program actions.’’ (ROD, p. 34.) This fundamental philosophy would

apply to all elements of the Program, not exclusively to surface storage projects. Regarding water storage projects, the CALFED agencies have proposed that:

The financing strategy for individual storage projects will vary due to the

design and planned operations of each project. Final cost allocations, however, will be made based on the principle of ‘‘beneficiaries pay.’’ Generally,

the planning and feasibility stages of surface storage projects will be pursued with State and Federal public funding. If a project is determined to

be feasible, a cost allocation plan will be prepared as part of the design

phase, preliminary cost allocations secured before construction begins, and

final cost allocation agreements implemented prior to project completion.

(ROD, p. 47).

78

Therefore, we anticipate that, for any given surface storage project, there will be

multiple classes of beneficiaries, including water users and the general public (for

example, for environmental restoration uses of the project). Cost allocations cannot

be finalized until additional studies of specific projects have been completed to determine potential magnitude and allocation of benefits. Under these circumstances,

we do not expect any water user (or any other beneficiary or beneficiary group) to

agree to any specific cost allocation at this time.

Question 9. What would the Federal government’s share of the cost of these

projects be?

Answer. For projects included in the Record of Decision, CALFED agencies have

developed a preliminary financing plan that anticipates the total Federal government share to be about 1/3 of the Bay-Delta Program’s total costs.

Water supply projects to be authorized in the Water Supply Program (§ 5 of S.

976) would be outside the scope of the Record of Decision. For these projects, the

Federal share would not exceed 50 percent as mandated by S. 976. [§ 5(b)(4)(B), p.

37, II. 11-14.]

Question 10. Would that Federal investment be repaid?

Answer. Projects included in the Record of Decision may be financed, in part, by

loans from the Federal government to local agencies or non-governmental organizations. We expect these loans would be repaid from the borrower’s revenues. Other

forms of Federal financial participation for Bay-Delta Program projects might include grants (either in money or in-kind services) to fund all or part of the costs

of projects. Grants are usually not repaid.

Costs for new supplies for broad public benefit would be shared by State and Federal governments and would not be repaid.

Funding proposed in the Water Supply Program would be for both grants and

loans [§ 5 (b)(4)]. S. 976 does not specify the proportion of funding to be dedicated

to each type of support.

Question 11. Is there a signed cost-share agreement for these projects?

Answer. Cost-sharing agreements have been executed for some Record of Decision

components, including for example, ecosystem restoration projects and groundwater

storage projects.

For water storage projects included in the Record of Decision, some agreements

have been completed regarding the sharing of costs of planning and feasibility studies for groundwater storage projects. For reasons stated earlier, no cost-sharing

agreements have been signed to date for surface storage projects.

As projects get closer to implementation stage, cost-share agreements will be completed and executed.

Question 12. Why do these projects need an accelerated process for authorization

that is not conducted for any other water project?

Answer. Accelerated authorization proposed in S. 976 could be an additional tool

to ensure the CALFED Bay-Delta Program maintains balanced implementation

throughout Stage 1. CALFED guidelines, already in place, will also ensure a balanced implementation strategy. The State of California believes that the storage

projects specified in the bill and labeled for accelerated authorization; that is, enlarging Shasta Dam, enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and development of new inDelta storage have merit and deserve further investigation. These projects will be

considered during Stage 1. Upon completion of studies, either with or without accelerated authorization, appropriate documentation (including a description of the

project, feasibility and operational studies, final environmental impact studies, certification by a statutorily-created public advisory group that the project is consistent

with the Record of Decision, a cost-benefit analysis, a description of the project’s

benefits and beneficiaries, a cost allocation plan for the project, and financing and

repayment plans) will be submitted to Congress.

Our expectation is that as program components become ready for implementation,

specific projects will be submitted for authorization consideration. In other words,

as program components are deemed ready, each will be submitted for authorization.

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY,

Lindsay, CA, August 20, 2001.

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN,

Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington,

DC.

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: This letter is in response to the letter to me from the

Committee asking for responses to additional questions posed in follow-up to the

79

hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power held on July 19, 2001 regarding the CalFed Program (S. 976) in California.

Let me first note how much I appreciated being invited to testify before the Subcommittee. This opportunity provided the Friant Water Users Authority an excellent

chance to clearly display our overall support for the legislation currently being considered for the authorization of the CalFed Program and to further explain the problems we have with proposed language in the bill that would extend federal ‘‘assurances’’ of a water supply to a certain group of California water users.

In response to the additional written questions raised by Senator Campbell, let

me offer that I have reviewed the responses provided to you and Senator Campbell

by Steve Hall on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) who

also testified at the July 19th hearing (response to questions dated August 10,

2001). I am in concurrence with the responses provided by ACWA and do not have

any further comment to add.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Please feel free to contact me if

there are further questions regarding my testimony.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD M. MOSS,

General Manager.

(81)

APPENDIX II

Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[Due to the enormous amount of materials received, only a representative sample of statements follow. Additional documents and

statements have been retained in subcommittee files.]

TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: Opposition to California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 (S. 976)

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes the ‘‘California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.’’ Although we recognize that there is an important role for the federal government

in California water issues, we feel that federal participation must be limited, targeted, and cost-effective in order for the taxpayer to be served. S. 976 fails to meet

this standard.

We believe that S. 976 abandons CALFED’s promise to approach California water

issues in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner and instead returns to California’s old habit of asking federal taxpayers to pay for its expensive water projects.

S. 976 moves away from progress and innovative thinking in solving California’s water supply issues in many ways:

• The Bill Comes With an Enormous Price Tag for Federal Taxpayers. Earlier

statements have estimated the cost of this bill to be $3 billion (apparently based

on estimates to complete Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD) Stage 1

projects—FY 2000-07). However, S. 976 comes with a much bigger, hidden price

tag for federal taxpayers. The bill writes a blank check by authorizing ‘‘such

sums as may be necessary to pay for the Federal share’’, and the federal share

of building three major projects, raising Shasta Dam, enlarging Los Vaqueros

Reservoir, and in-Delta storage, is 50%. • S. 976 Allows Fast-Tracking of Major Water Projects. This bill effectively

preauthorizes three major water projects and prevents full Congressional review

of potentially wasteful and incredibly expensive California water storage

projects. To be authorized, studies for enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir, raising

Shasta Dam, and in-Delta storage need only be approved by one of three authorizing committees, the House Committee on Resources, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, cutting the rest of Congress out of the decision-making

process. The Secretary of the Interior submits reports for construction projects

to each of these committees. Unless all three committees disapprove of the reports within 60 days of submission, the three projects are authorized.

• The Legislation Abandons ‘‘Beneficiary Pays’’. The bill abandons the principle

of ‘‘beneficiary pays,’’ a key protection for the federal taxpayer in the CALFED

ROD. By not requiring the identification of beneficiaries prior to authorizing

new projects, S. 976 will perpetuate the wasteful cycle of forcing federal taxpayers, rather than the users who are directly benefiting from the water, to foot

the bill for costly water projects.

• The Bill Provides Water Delivery Assurances for Central Valley Water Contractors. S. 976 promises south-of-Delta Central Valley agricultural water service

contractors 65-70% of their existing contract in normal years. This section catapults many water users with junior rights to the front of the water line to the

detriment of users with more senior rights. Under this section, the delivery of

subsidized water to a small group of Central Valley agricultural contractors beVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
82

comes the highest federal water priority in California. The bill also creates a

legal entitlement that will almost certainly be used by contractors in existing

and future litigation against the federal taxpayer.

• S. 976 Sticks Federal Taxpayers with the Bill for Water Assessment Required

by California State Law. Under California State law, the California Water Plan

Update, a comprehensive assessment of California water supply needs, must be

completed every five years. The bill drags the federal taxpayer into a process

required and led by California, and then sticks the federal taxpayer with half

the bill for completing the assessment and projects generated by the assessment.

Federal taxpayers should assist California in finding water solutions, but California—and more importantly, water users—must take the lead in implementing and

funding these solutions. The ‘‘California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001’’ will launch a new taxpayer-subsidized, dam-building

era for water users. Taxpayers for Common Sense will work to find solutions, but,

we believe S. 976, unfortunately, is more of a problem than a solution.

We would be happy to further discuss this legislation with you. Please contact me

at (202) 546-8500 x130 or aileen@taxpayer.net with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

AILEEN D. RODER,

California Water Project Coordinator.

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,

San Francisco, CA, July 18, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. BARBARA BOXER,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Re: The New Draft CALFED Reauthorization Bill (July 18, 2001 Draft)

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND SENATOR BOXER: We have received the new draft

bill that Senator Feinstein just released this afternoon in preparation for tomorrow’s

hearing, and we have been asked for our initial analysis. As you know, NRDC has

many issues of concern with S. 976, the Senator’s current bill, many of which have

been addressed in previous letters and comments. This letter focuses only on a few

key issues, including the authorization for new construction actions and the attempt

to create a federal statutory directive to increase water deliveries to south of Delta

agricultural contractors, both of which are provoking opposition among many stakeholders in the CALFED process. Although we recognize that this draft responds to

a number of concerns that were raised about previous drafts, many of the core problems remain.

The new July 18 draft includes revised language on the so-called ‘‘west side assurances,’’ a revised procedure for congressional review of new surface storage, and a

blanket authorization for ‘‘all actions necessary’’ to carry out Stage 1 activities in

the ROD. As is described more fully below and in our previous letters, NRDC cannot

support this new version of the legislation and we urge you to amend it to restore

the balance and consensus foundation of the CALFED ROD. Our concerns include

the following:

• Eliminates Clean Water Act Review: The draft bill would seriously undermine

protections for clean water and wetlands by allowing new and expanded dams

to proceed without Clean Water Act permits. Clean Water Act permits are normally required for the construction and expansion of surface storage, because

dams destroy wetlands and have other harmful effects on water quality. Rather

than requiring the new projects to comply fully with the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements, the bill’s authorization language would effect an end-run

around these requirements, allowing the new dams to proceed without any

Clean Water Act permit. There is no valid policy justification for allowing large

new dams to proceed without receiving a Clean Water Act permit. There also

is no valid policy justification for failing to offer wetlands the highest protections under the law—particularly in California, which has already lost more

than 90 percent of its wetlands, more than any other state.

• Eliminates Essential Congressional Review: The draft bill would severely curtail congressional review of projects seeking authorizations. For example, the

draft would not require any committee hearings or vote. Given the long history

83

of damaging water projects, limiting congressional review is unacceptable. If approved, this language could establish a damaging new national precedent.

• Encourages Litigation and Threatens Environmental Protections: The bill is virtually certain to trigger new litigation by south-of-Delta irrigation interests as

to the adequacy of their taxpayer-subsidized water deliveries. It does so by directing the federal government to increase water deliveries to those irrigation

interests by at least 15 percent or up to 65-70 percent of their existing contract.

If deliveries in the future fall short of this new requirement for any reason including preceding dry years or the need to reserve some water to protect water

quality or the environment—these irrigation interests will be almost certain to

sue to increase their deliveries. This language is nearly certain to trigger litigation to roll back current legal requirements to protect the environment on the

Trinity River, the Delta and Central Valley wetlands. It is also likely to lead

to an outrageous legal claim that taxpayers must purchase water, at perhaps

$160 per acre-foot and sell that water to CVP contractors at a fraction of that

price. Such a legal requirement would represent a new right that would go far

beyond the ROD and the capacity of the Central Valley Project. It would also

represent disastrous public policy. The bill language about ‘‘no effect on contracts or law,’’ while helpful in some respects, may fail to protect against such

lawsuits, for two independent reasons. First, it fails to provide that the requirements in the bill itself do not create new rights to water deliveries for water

users. Second, while it provides that nothing in this portion of the bill affects

any ‘‘right’’ under federal or state law, it fails to provide that nothing in this

portion of the bill affects any existing requirement under federal or state law.

• Authorizes Additional Controversial Projects: The separate authorization for the

Bay-Delta Program construction actions in Section 4 of the bill is sweeping and

must be considered separately from the procedures created on the three specific

storage projects discussed later in the bill. Section 4 directs the Secretary to

‘‘carry out all actions necessary to implement stage 1’’ including various

preconstruction and construction activities, without any language of limitation

or pre-conditions. The list of actions discussed in the ROD that may be eligible

under this part of the bill is extensive. This list could include Sites Reservoir,

as well as a screened Delta diversion, which could become the beginning of a

Peripheral Canal. Moreover, these actions could be converted by this language

into Federal projects, with all the CVP repayment obligations (and subsidies)

that might entail, even if CALFED has not decided if there should be any federal role in these projects.

We have had little time to review this new draft. However, we wanted to provide

these initial comments as rapidly as possible. In light of these numerous problems,

we believe this new draft cannot be supported as written.

Nevertheless, despite our concerns about certain aspects of the proposed bill, we

firmly support the need for a consensus of interests in support of CALFED reauthorization that would make it possible to obtain CALFED funding. Unfortunately, this

new draft fails to solve the many problems with S. 976 as introduced and will not

achieve the needed consensus. We therefore urge you to work for alternate approaches that will achieve truly consensus-based authorization legislation.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

BARRY NELSON,

Senior Policy Analyst.

HAMILTON CANDEE,

Senior Attorney.

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES,

Sacramento, CA, July 19, 2001.

DEAR CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION: California business, labor and

water leaders strongly support bipartisan federal legislation needed this year to authorize the crucial CALFED Bay-Delta implementation plan. We urge you to become

a co-sponsor of H.R. 1985 and to work with us in securing its passage.

California is growing and will quickly outpace the modest investments made to

its water infrastructure over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis has shown,

there is a tremendous price to pay for being caught without adequate resources.

There is broad agreement among our state’s elected and opinion leaders that water

will be the next crisis for California unless steps are taken now.

84

1Princeton Economic Research, Inc., Review of Federal Geothermal Royalties and Taxes, December 15, 1998. (Figures expressed in 1998 dollars.)

With support from business, labor and water interests, California has committed

substantial funding to begin that investment through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Today, federal action in the form of S. 976 sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein and H.R. 1985, by Congressman Ken Calvert, is needed to keep the effort on

track and prevent a water supply crisis in California’s near future.

Without an adequate water supply our environment and economy will be severely

impacted. The Bay-Delta Program is the largest and most comprehensive environmental restoration project in our state’s history. At the same time, the plan outlines

needed improvements to water supply reliability and quality in the Bay-Delta—vital

to public health and our quality of life.

Whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply, we can’t afford to

neglect our infrastructure. California jobs depend on it.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered in the Bay-Delta Plan.

S. 976 and H.R. 1985 will help make that plan a reality.

Sincerely,

ACTION ON WATER SIGNATORIES.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY ASSOCIATION,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2001.

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN,

Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN: We appreciate the interest of the Senate Energy

Committee in expanding renewable energy production, and would request that this

letter on behalf of the members of the Geothermal Energy Association be included

in the record of the Committee’s hearings of July 19th. A full list of GEA’s members

is attached.

Geothermal energy as making a substantial contribution to our energy needs, and

has the potential to do much more. Nearly 2,800 megawatts of geothermal power,

producing 14-17 billion kilowatt-hours per year of electricity are in operation. High

temperature geothermal resources supply about 6% of the electricity in California,

10% of the power in Northern Nevada, about 25% of the electricity for the Island

of Hawaii, and significant power in Utah. Lower temperature resources provide substantial heat and energy for schools, homes and businesses throughout the West.

Beyond its energy contribution, geothermal production contributes directly to

state and local economies and to the national Treasury. To date, geothermal electricity producers have paid over $600 million in rentals, bonus bids and royalties

to the federal government. Moreover, according to an analysis performed by Princeton Economic Research, it would be reasonable to estimate that the geothermal industry has paid nearly 6 times that amount in federal income tax, for a combined

total of over $4 billion.1 If the economic multiplier effects were considered, the total

benefits of geothermal energy to the local and national economy would be substantially greater.

All of the western states, from Texas to Washington, could see a dramatic expansion of geothermal energy use, including thousands of new megawatts of geothermal

electric capacity, with proper incentives, expedited regulatory processing, and a

strong research program to enhance technology.

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES: EXTENDING THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT TO INCLUDE

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

The most important measure that the Congress could take to spur the development of new geothermal electricity capacity would be the inclusion of geothermal

energy in the list of eligible technologies to receive a 1.5-cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit under Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code. Extension of the

production tax credit to new geothermal energy facilities would result in significant

expansion of private sector investment in new geothermal power in the West.

GEA also supports an inclusion of ‘‘incremental’’ production in the list of eligible

technologies. Upgrading and refurbishing older geothermal power plants with higher efficiency turbines and other new technology can result in significant near-term

additional generation. The new power production achieved should receive the tax

credit.

Extension of the Production Tax Credit to include geothermal energy is proposed

in S. 596, the Energy Security Tax Incentive Act of 2001 sponsored by Senator

85

2Princeton Energy Research Inc., Op, Cit., volume I, page 17.

Bingaman, S. 389, the National Energy Security Act of 2001 sponsored by Senator

Murkowski and S. 249 the Renewable Energy Development Incentives Act sponsored by Senator Reid.

Expansion of Section 45 to include geothermal energy would help encourage investors to choose taking the risk of investing in new geothermal facilities. Geothermal

power plants are capital intensive, costing several times more than a comparable

natural gas power plant. Also, geothermal power plants require a significant upfront investment of time and money to define the geothermal resource, an investment that has been estimated to be as much as 40% of the cost of a new ‘‘green

field’’ geothermal facility. Extension of the production tax credit to geothermal energy would help overcome these barriers and promote geothermal energy as a cost

effective means to address clean air and climate concerns while providing reliable

power to our homes and industry.

RESOURCE POTENTIAL, REGULATORY AND PUBLIC LANDS ISSUES

What is the future potential for geothermal energy in the West? What would the

benefits of developing these resources be? These are difficult questions to answer,

in part because the federal efforts of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department

of Energy to define the U.S. resource base have not been funded for many years.

To be reasonably accurate, for geothermal energy a ‘‘resource assessment’’ would involve not only analysis but also surface exploration, selected drilling and updated

modeling. While individual companies have conducted some exploration, much of

that data is proprietary and since the collapse of power markets in the early 90’s

there has been little interest in high-risk investment.

Earlier this year, the USGS and DOE testified on these issues before the House

Resources Subcommittee on Energy. They restated their 1978 estimate of geothermal potential in the West, over 22,000 MW, which is summarized by state in

the attached table. However, the USES also indicated that this estimate is based

upon assessment work done largely in the late 1960s and that there have been significant changes in our understanding of geothermal resources since then. Also, as

you may notice from examining the attached table, many of the Western states with

geothermal potential were never fully assessed by the USGS in its decades old analysis. An obvious conclusion is that a new geothermal resource assessment is needed,

if not badly overdue.

But, assuming that half of the estimated geothermal potential could be brought

on line, the results would be of significant benefit to the West. A Princeton Economic Research study defines some of the direct economic benefits. The cumulative

federal royalties from the new geothermal plants would reach over $7 billion by

2050, and estimated income tax revenues would exceed $52 billion in nominal dollars.2 For just royalties, alone, that would mean an investment of $3.5 billion in

schools and local government facilities in the Western states through their share of

federal royalties.

Whether and when the economic benefits of further geothermal development are

realized will greatly depend upon the action, or inaction, of the federal land management agencies. Today, about 75% of U.S. geothermal electricity production takes

place on Federal public lands because that is where most of the resource is located.

We expect that the resources yet to be developed also will be predominantly located

on public lands. While the previous Administration espoused development of more

geothermal resources in the West through its ‘‘GeoPowering the West’’ initiative, too

little was done to address the underlying problems that prevent investment in geothermal projects on public lands.

New geothermal development requires the timely and reasonable administration

of federal leasing, permitting, and environmental reviews by public land management agencies. Unfortunately, the recent past has been one characterized by bureaucratic delay and indecision by public land agencies; as a result, there has been

a rapid decline in new geothermal energy development. Tens of thousands of acres

of geothermal leases have been applied for in the West, but no action has been

taken by federal agencies for years. Permit applications that should have taken days

or weeks have taken months or years to process. Environmental reviews have been

unnecessarily extensive, costly, and repetitive; and in areas where an EIS has been

completed, decisions by federal agencies have been subject to years of delay and appeal.

It is important that the Committee recognize that there are serious problems facing geothermal energy development on the public lands. In many ways, the probVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
86

lems facing natural gas development are mirrored for geothermal development, if

not exacerbated by geothermal energy’s higher risk and much higher capital costs.

To mitigate these extraordinary delays and costs, we would encourage the federal

land management and regulatory agencies to:

• Ensure that the processing of needed, clean energy projects on public lands are

handled with a sense of urgency and priority. It is vital that bureaucratic delays

be reduced from years to months if not weeks.

• Eliminate repetition and duplication in the process. One of the most recent

projects to go through the federal process was held up repeatedly while the

same issues were examined over and over again by different federal and state

agencies.

• Strike a more responsible balance between our need for new, clean energy supplies and other uses and values for the public lands.

• Ensure reasonable access to public lands, including military lands, and lease

terms that reflect the public interest in developing geothermal energy resources.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The third priority for ensuring the expanded use of geothermal energy is having

a strong research program at the Department of Energy. The DOE geothermal energy research program has been seriously underfunded for years. DOE’s own geothermal energy Strategic Plan calls for a near-term annual budget level of $50-$60

million. This budget level would be consistent with recommendations made by the

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in its 1997

report. Critical technical needs include the development of advanced drilling, exploration and reservoir sensing, energy conversion and metals recovery, and enhanced

reclaimed water injection. (By comparison, Japan is spending $150 million on geothermal energy research and development).

A recent independent review by the National Research Council, Renewable Power

Pathways, generally agrees with this conclusion. The NRC panel states:

In light of the significant advantages of geothermal energy as a resource

for power generation, it may be undervalued in DOE’s renewable energy

portfolio. Significant amounts of high-grade resources are available, and

geothermal power technologies can operate in a variety of duty cycles (from

base load to peak load conditions). . . . In addition, the United States has

taken the lead in successful commercial demonstrations of geothermal energy for generating electricity and heat at several sites and is the current

technology leader in the world among very active competitors in Europe

and Japan. (Renewable Power Pathways, page 53.)

While DOE’s geothermal research program has been undergoing fundamental

change, we believe it is moving in a positive direction. However, it needs adequate

funds to achieve its objectives and ensure the continued advance of geothermal technology.

CONCLUSION

We appreciate the interest of the Senate Energy Committee in expanding the use

of geothermal energy in the West. There are significant untapped geothermal resources throughout the West, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the

Committee to develop the laws and policies that will encourage their greater use.

Sincerely,

KARL GAWELL,

Executive Director.

87

SAVE THE BAY • SIERRA CLUB • LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS • CALIFORNIA

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL •

AMERICAN RIVERS • TROUT UNLIMITED • PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION • LEAGUE OF WOMAN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA • CLEAN WATER

ACTION • GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY • THE BAY INSTITUTE • DELTA KEEPER

• GOLDEN GATE FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION • SAVE THE AMERICAN RIVER ASSOCIATION • ENVIRONMENTAL WATER CAUCUS • CALIFORNIA TROUT • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RIVER GUIDES • CALIFORNIA SPORTSFISHING PROTECTION

ALLIANCE • PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE • COMMUNITY WATER RIGHTS

PROJECT • FRIENDS OF THE RIVER • ENDANGERED HABITAT LEAGUE • MONO LAKE

COMMITTEE • SALMONID RESTORATION FEDERATION • SACRAMENTO RIVER PRESERVATION TRUST • BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL • SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE •

CLEAN SOUTH BAY • NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER • FRIENDS OF THE

TRINITY RIVER • SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER OF SURFRIDER FOUNDATION

July 12, 2001.

Re: Opposition to S. 976 as Introduced; Request to Support Boxer Amendments

DEAR SENATOR: The undersigned organizations support the CALFED plan and its

call for a restored San Francisco Bay and Delta Estuary, as well as improved water

supply reliability and quality for cities and farms. For this reason, we urge you to

oppose S. 976 as introduced, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water

Quality Enhancement Act. We also urge you to support Senator Boxer’s proposed

amendments.

In its current form, S. 976 would substantially undermine the CALFED Record

of Decision (ROD) agreed to by 16 federal and state agencies. If enacted, this bill

is likely to continue the debilitating water wars of the last three decades and further decimate California’s environment and fishing industry. Major problems with

S. 976 in its current form include:

• ‘‘Pre-approval’’ process for major new water development facilities. The bill

would bypass the usual congressional review and authorization process for certain water projects and deem them ‘‘approved’’ for purposes of receiving federal

appropriations once studies are completed, regardless of the results of these

studies, unless all of the relevant committees disapprove the reports within 60

days—a near impossibility given the Congressional calendar.

• No ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ requirement for pre-approved water protects. The bill ignores CALFED’s requirement that water user beneficiaries pay for new facilities and would continue the failed policy of subsidizing scarce water, thus encouraging inefficient and environmentally harmful use of that water.

• Extraordinary legislative amendment of contracts giving new guarantees to agribusiness out of water needed for endangered salmon. The bill would give agribusiness a guarantee of 65-70% of their current contract maximums—a benefit

not provided by those contracts which recognize that, as the junior users on the

system, these contractors are likely to receive less than the maximum amount.

This new water right would come at the direct expense of the ecosystem and

other water users. This provision is likely to:

Trump environmental protections for endangered fish and wildlife.

Give CVP contractors ‘‘first call’’ on CALFED funding for storage and other

water supply reliability tools.

Create a new legal entitlement encouraging further litigation.

• Imbalance in water development and ecosystem restoration benefits. S. 976 focuses primarily on water development and fails to fully implement the restoration, conservation and water quality elements of the CALFED ROD. It also contains an entirely new water supply program—over and above the considerable

development authorized as part of the CALFED program. However, there is no

parallel program addressing critical ecosystem problems beyond CALFED.

Other key omissions include:

No dedicated funding for restoration, in particular the $35 million annual

water user fee called for in the CALFED ROD.

No guarantee for environmental water of at least 100,000 AF per year as

called for in the CALFED ROD.

No requirement to implement the CALFED agricultural and urban water conservation programs.

No requirement to establish a comprehensive drinking water policy as called

for in the CALFED ROD.

88

Senator Boxer has introduced amendments addressing two of these issues. The

first would eliminate the guarantee of new water to south of Delta contractors and

limit litigation. While we believe the better course would be to strike the south of

Delta assurances language entirely, the Boxer amendment is a substantial improvement over S. 976.

The second amendment would eliminate the pre-authorization language for new

water development in S. 976, and establish a ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ requirement for

water projects consistent with the CALFED plan. We strongly support this amendment. Other changes are necessary to ensure that this bill fulfills CALFED’s promise, but these amendments are key improvements.

There is a need to authorize the CALFED program. However, in its current form,

S. 976 strays far from the agreement reached after six years of study and negotiation. Critically, it is likely to undermine the restoration of the San Francisco Bay

and Delta Estuary that CALFED was supposed to achieve. We urge you to oppose

S. 976 as currently drafted and to support Senator Boxer’s amendments. We understand that discussions are underway that may modify S. 976, and we look forward

to productively engaging in those conversations. Thank you for your consideration

of our views.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Koehler, Save The Bay; Carl Zichella, Sierra Club; Betsy Loyless,

League of Conservation Voters; Sarah Rose, California League of

Conservation Voters; Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council; S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, American Rivers; Steve Malloch, Trout

Unlimited; Zeke Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association; Roberta Borgonovo, League of Woman Voters of California;

Marguerite Young, Clean Water Action; Arthur Feinstein, Golden

Gate Audubon Society; Gary Bobker, The Bay Institute; Bill Jennings, Delta Keeper; Roger Thomas, Golden Gate Fishermen’s Association; Felix Smith, Save The American River Association; Jean

Auer, Environmental Water Caucus; Nick Di Croce, California Trout;

Craig Bell, Northern California Association of River Guides; Jim

Crenshaw, California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance; Gerald H.

Meral, Planning and Conservation League; Michael Warburton, Community Water Rights Project; Elizabeth Reifsnider, Friends of the

River; Dan Silver, Endangered Habitat League; Frances Spivy–

Weber, Mono Lake Committee; Craig Bell, Salmonid Restoration Federation; John Merz, Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Lynn

Barris, Butte Environmental Council; Laurel Ames, Sierra Nevada

Alliance; Trish Mulvey, CLEAN South Bay; Tim McKay, Northcoast

Environmental Center; Byron Leydecker, Friends of the Trinity

River; Mike Paquet, San Francisco Chapter of Surfrider Foundation.

CALIFORNIA WATER PROJECTS SINCE 1996

1. American River Watershed (Flood control)

2. Humboldt Harbor and Bay (Navigation)

3. Marin County Shoreline (Restoration)

4. Port of Long Beach (Deepening)

5. San Lorenzo River (Flood control)

6. San Lorenzo River (Restoration)

7. Santa Barbara Harbor (Navigation)

8. Santa Monica Breakwater (Navigation)

9. Oakland Harbor (Navigation)

10. Oakland Harbor (Deepening)

11. San Luis Rey River (Flood protection)

12. Folsom Dam Modification (Flood protection)

13. South Sacramento County Streams (Flood protection)

14. Yuba River Basin (Flood protection)

15. Los Angeles Harbor (Navigation)

16. Murrieta Creek (Flood protection)

17. Pine Flat Dam (Flood protection)

18. Santa Barbara Streams (Restoration)

19. Upper Newport Bay (Navigation)

20. Whitewater River Basin (Restoration)

21. Upper Guadalupe River (Flood protection)

89

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Sacramento, CA, April 17, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of the City of Sacramento (City), the County

of Sacramento (County) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), we

want to express appreciation for your unwavering leadership in the United States

Senate in the water resources area. A strong approach is needed to ensure that California has the tools and resources to manage California’s water resources in a manner that will protect our environmental and economic prosperity into the future. We

support the approach set forth in your April 5th draft federal authorization and

funding measure, entitled the ‘‘California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001.’’ The City, County and EBMUD greatly appreciate the work that you and your

staff have undertaken over the past six years to help resolve the water conflicts in

California. Your current draft measure is the most recent of many contributions to

help resolve these water conflicts in a manner that would provide benefit to all of

the various interests. We strongly endorse the inclusion of the Freeport Regional

Project in your draft measure, as it is vital to each of our interests and would serve

to benefit multiple regions in the State.

The City, County and EBMUD intend to work with all of the other stakeholder

interests in California to help create the needed ‘‘critical mass’’ of support for this

measure. If California’s interests cannot work for the common good, we may find

ourselves without the national political support that will be needed to secure enactment of your important measure. If California water interests are unable to work

together for a common solution, we may not find another opportunity for such a

measure for some time.

As you full well know, we in California (including those of us in the East Bay

and Sacramento regions) cannot afford to delay implementing a solution that addresses our mutual water supply needs in an environmentally responsible manner.

The City, County and EBMUD look forward to the introduction of your measure and

will work closely with you and the other stakeholder interests to advance this important measure through Congress.

Sincerely,

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

ROBERT THOMAS,

City Manager.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

TERRY SCHUTTEN,

County Executive.

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY

DISTRICT

DENNIS M. DIEMER,

General Manager.

THE DELTA WETLANDS PROJECT,

Sacramento, CA, April 20, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of the Delta Wetlands Partnership, I would

like to express our thanks and support for your recent efforts on legislation to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In particular, Delta Wetlands believes

that the legislation that you released on April 6, 2001 represents a significant first

step in the effort to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and we urge you

to introduce this bill.

There is a real need for continued improvement in the management of California’s

water system both with respect to increased protections for the environment as well

as the development of new water supplies to serve California’s future needs. One

element of that program must be new water storage projects in California. The California Department of Water Resources estimates that, in the next twenty years,

without additional water projects, California’s water demand will exceed supply by

up to 26% in drought years. In order to address this increasing shortfall, the

CALFFD Bay-Delta Program identifies several water storage projects (including the

potential acquisition or lease of the Delta Wetlands Project) and sets an ambitious

90

schedule for implementation that requires that the CALFED agencies continue a

high level of effort on the development and implementation of the storage elements.

Thus, the urgency of reauthorizing CALFED this year not only lies in Congressional

approval of the proposed measures in the Record of Decision but also in the need

to continue authorization and funding of the development of these water storage

projects so that they can be implemented on a timely basis.

The Delta Wetlands Project can provide immediate water supply, water management and environmental benefits under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The

Project has the capability of being implemented in the next three to five years and

is in the process of receiving final state and federal permits required for construction and implementation of the project. At the same time, the Delta Wetlands

Project also will create 9,000 acres of new wetlands habitat in the Sacramento-San

Joaquin Bay Delta and be implemented with a series of fishery, habitat and water

quality protection measures.

Delta Wetlands appreciates the work that you and your staff, Andy Moran and

Warren Weinstein, have done in developing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program reauthorization legislation. Moreover, we fully support your efforts in this regard and

look forward to working with you to ensure that reauthorization is achieved in 2001.

Sincerely,

JAMES L. EASTON,

General Manager.

SANTA CLARA VALLEYWATER DISTRICT,

San Jose, CA, April 23, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Subject: California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The Santa Clara Valley Water District supports your

draft legislation to re-authorize the CALFED program and to provide funding for

the enhancement of the water supply and ecosystem in the State of California. We

appreciate very much your continued leadership and interest in addressing the

State’s critical water supply, water quality and ecosystem needs. We concur with

your assessment that California’s electricity crisis is a stark lesson of failure to plan

ahead to meet our growing needs. This lesson should not be repeated with water— our life-blood.

I am pleased to report that my Board of Directors voted to support the introduction of your draft legislation and to continue our dialogue with you and your staff

as the bill language gets developed and refined. We are delighted to see that a number of projects and programs critical to Santa Clara County’s water supply, water

quality and environmental needs are included in the legislation. We would like to

continue to work with you and your staff to ensure that all the interests of the

stakeholders are addressed and that no particular interest is advanced to the detriment of others.

Thank you again for providing the opportunity to work with you on this important

legislation that will provide statewide benefits for many years to come. We look forward to our continuing dialogue with you in the Senate and additional opportunities

in the House when similar efforts begin.

Sincerely,

STANLEY M. WILLIAMS,

Chief Executive Officer.

WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,

Riverside, CA, April 24, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

Hart Building, Washington DC.

Support for Calfed Re-Authorization Legislation

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: I am writing to express our support for your bill to reauthorize the CALFED program and to encourage you to proceed with this critical

legislation.

The Western Municipal Water District is a public agency that provides water supply, wastewater disposal, and water resource management to one-half million people

within a 510 square mile area of western Riverside County. We were formed by public vote in 1954 to bring imported water supplies to this area. These supplies are

91

purchased from the Metropolitan Water District and are mostly imported from

Northern California via the State Water Project.

Not only does Western import water, but, in our water resource management role,

we work to improve and manage our local resources, with the goal of lessening our

dependence on imported supplies. The CalFed process can help us succeed in this

effort.

A critical component of your proposed legislation is the Southern California Integrated Watershed Program, which would assist in developing significant new water

supply and storage capabilities in Southern California, reduce the need to import

water supplies, and provide significant environmental and water supply benefits for

the Colorado River Basin States, for the San Francisco Bay Delta region, and for

California as a whole.

We would like to urge your efforts with this critical legislation that will help us

better manage our limited water supplies throughout the state.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. HARRIGER,

General Manager.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY,

San Diego, CA, April 24, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The San Diego County Water Authority supports your

efforts to enact the California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancements Act of

2001 that would continue implementation of the CALFED Bay Delta program. On

behalf of the nearly 3 million San Diego County residents who rely on the Authority

for a safe and reliable water supply, we look forward to actively participating in a

process that ensures the success of this essential measure and the CALFED program.

The 1987-92 drought proved that Southern California could no longer afford delaying a solution that addresses the state’s mutual water supply needs. Your legislation authorizes a comprehensive water supply program that will help to bring water

demands and supplies into balance. Your legislation also addresses key CALFED

implementation issues in the areas of water quality, ecosystem restoration, storage

and conveyance improvement, and conservation and reclamation. It contains appropriate requirements to use credible and objective science and reporting and performance milestones.

We applaud your personal commitment to achieve a balanced solution that protects the essential resources of California. Your efforts and this legislation will result in substantial benefits to the entire state. The Authority looks forward to working with you and Congressman Ken Calvert to find common ground on these important issues. Thank you for your leadership in authoring legislation that will enhance

California’s environmental restoration, water quality, and water supply.

Sincerely,

MAUREEN A. STAPLETON,

General Manager.

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES,

Sacramento, CA, April 26, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2001 inviting responses to your draft CALFED Authorization Legislation. We commend you for your

leadership on this issue and continue to believe that you are one of only a handful

of political leaders who can bring California’s diverse interests together on this important issue. We support the introduction of your legislation and believe it could

break the longstanding gridlock that has plagued California water policy.

We are particularly heartened by the fact that your legislation recognizes the

need to invest in our water infrastructure in order to avert a water supply crisis

similar to the energy crisis California is now experiencing. Your legislation authorizes specific groundwater and surface storage projects, improvements to water conveyance, a rigorous program to improve scientific review, improved water project

92

operational flexibility and demand management measures, all of which will be needed to assure that the water supply and water quality needs of the state will be met.

Further, the study and analysis of additional storage and conveyance improvements

will help assure that we meet California’s future as well as its immediate water

needs.

As you know, Congressman Calvert, the chair of the House Water and Power Subcommittee has indicated his intention to introduce similar legislation. We look forward to working with you and Congressman Calvert in developing legislative proposals in the House and the Senate that are compatible and which provide the kind

of clear guidance to federal agencies that we believe is necessary for the CALFED

implementation plan to be successfully implemented.

Toward that end we have attached a set of principles that ACWA adopted in December of last year. We will use these principles as our guide to assure that the

final legislative package authorizes the CalFed implementation plan and the regulatory regime under which it operates in a way that assures a balance among environmental, water supply and water quality needs.

Thank you again for your strong and decisive leadership and for your willingness

to work with ACWA and its members in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

STEPHEN K. HALL,

Executive Director.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION,

San Mateo, CA, April 26, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: CALFED Legislation; Support

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The Bay Area Water Users Association (Association)

is pleased to support your draft CALFED legislation, the California Water Supply

and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001. The Association represents 29 cities,

water districts and other agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Association members provide water to 1.7 million people, plus business and institutional customers

in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo County.

This legislation is important to their customers because all of our member agencies purchase water from the City and County of San Francisco and many also rely

upon other sources of water, including both the State and federal water projects.

The bill would authorize significant federal commitments to protecting California’s

ecosystem in conjunction with improving the water supply reliability situation within California through increases in water use efficiency and water storage.

Your efforts to bring forward balanced CALFED authorization and appropriation

legislation to Congress this year that addresses ecosystem restoration, water supply

enhancement, and water supply reliability should be applauded and supported. We

commend you for the continued leadership that you bring to resolving water supply

and ecosystem issues in California, especially those related to the Bay Delta system.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your staff on this important

legislation. We look forward to its swift passage and implementation. Please call me

if we can be of any further assistance to you.

Very Sincerely,

ARTHUR R. JENSEN,

General Manager.

NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT,

Pacifica, CA, April 27, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: CALFED Legislation; Support

The Board of the North Coast County Water District is pleased to support your

draft CALFED legislation, the California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001. Passage of this legislation is critical to the future of our great

State of California.

The North Coast County Water District applauds your efforts to bring forward

balanced CALFED authorization and appropriation legislation to Congress this

93

year. The legislation would provide an opportunity to implement various water development projects that would not be considered without your legislation.

The residents of Pacifica are expecting the District to meet their present and future water needs. Without assistance at the Federal level the District will be hard

pressed to meet those water needs.

Please encourage your fellow Senators to support your efforts on this legislation.

The state should not miss this opportunity to build the foundation necessary to support California’s water needs into the future. Let us heed the warning signs that

were missed by the power industry. The District looks forward to swift passage and

implementation of your legislation.

Respectfully,

CHRISTINE L. HAWKINS

President of the Board.

CITY OF MILLBRAE,

Millbrae, CA, April 27, 2001.

Re: Support for CALFED Legislation

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The City of Millbrae is pleased to support your draft

CALFED legislation, the California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act

of 2001. The City provides water to businesses and 21,394 residential customers.

This legislation is important to our customers because we purchase 100% of our

water from the City and County of San Francisco. The bill would authorize significant federal commitments to protecting California’s ecosystem in conjunction with

improving the water supply reliability situation within California through increases

in water use efficiency and water storage.

Your efforts to bring forward balanced CALFED authorization and appropriation

legislation to Congress this year that addresses ecosystem restoration, water supply

enhancement, and water supply reliability should be applauded and supported. We

commend you for the continued leadership that you bring to resolving water supply

and ecosystem issues in California, especially those related to the Bay Delta system.

We look forward to the passage and implementation of this important legislation.

Sincerely,

L.M. SANDRINI,

Director of Public Works.

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY,

Irwindale, CA, June 28, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building, Washington DC.

Re: S. 976 (Feinstein)—Support

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

(SGVEP) extends its support to S. 976. The Partnership is a coalition of public and

private sectors working to sustain and grow the economic vitality of the Valley. Our

goal is to attract more businesses, provide more jobs and create a ‘‘business-friendly’’

region. Your bill, ‘‘The California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001,’’ authorizes $3 billion to assist in the restoration of California’s endangered water ecosystem and enhance California’s water supply, reliability

and quality of life for all interest.

In addition, SGVEP is the lead organization in the effort to have several San Gabriel Valley cities designated as general expansion sites of the Port of Long Beach’s

Foreign Trade Zone #50. Thus, we believe that it’s important to take heed of the

2001 state energy crisis, which in many ways foreshadows what could happen with

water if California fails to plan for future growth. S. 976 would protect and restore

endangered habitats and ecosystems; authorize the State-Federal CALFED partnership; and create off-stream water storage so that more water from wet years can

be saved for use during dry years. Such measures ensure continued economic prosperity throughout our state and maintaining the competitive level of California

State economy. SGVEP supports efforts to establish a reliable water supply through

a balanced program of projects in the following areas:

• Ecosystem Restoration

• Improved Infrastructure

• Improved Water Management

94

The future of California depends on managing our limited water resources wisely

and responsibly. S. 976 represents a comprehensive approach to confront the water

issues facing California’s economy and overall quality of life. The San Gabriel Valley

Economic Partnership appreciates your support of our region and proactive stance

on this issue.

Sincerely,

FRANK J. MARQUEZ,

President & Chief Executive Officer.

DUCKS UNLIMITED INC.,

WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE,

Rancho Cordova, CA, May 2, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Subject: California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The Western Regional Office of Ducks Unlimited, Inc.,

through our Valley/Bay CARE Initiative, has been actively involved in the delivery

of projects to protect, enhance, restore, and manage important wetlands and associated uplands in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay.

The CALFED program has been instrumental in providing the forum and funding

to implement these critical ecosystem enhancements, many of which serve to benefit

the critical role the Central Valley plays in providing habitat for migratory waterfowl. Absent a continued commitment in meeting the needs of California water supply and ecosystem enhancement, we risk further degradation of Central Valley wetland habitats. Current wetlands support up to 60% of the waterfowl in the Pacific

Flyway during their annual migration. Accordingly, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. supports

your draft legislation to re-authorize the CALFED program.

We would like to continue to work with you and your staff to assure that actual

on-the-ground ecosystem enhancement is continued, recognizing that current and future wetlands conservation is dependent on highly managed eater systems that

must meet multiple purposes. It is also important to note that agriculture, either

through common conveyance and drainage systems or winter flooding of crops such

as rice, plays a critical role in maintaining wetland and associated riparian/upland

habitats.

Thank you for your leadership on this important legislation that will not only

serve California, but also help meet the needs of North American waterfowl in the

Pacific Flyway.

Sincerely,

RYAN BRODDRICK,

Director of Conservation, Valley/Bay CARE.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

SAN JOSE SILICON VALLEY,

San Jose, CA, May 11, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington DC.

Subject: California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of the members of the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, I would like to commend you for your continued leadership and interest in addressing the State’s critical water supply, water quality and

ecosystem needs. By way of background, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of

Commerce represents nearly 2,000 companies covering the full spectrum of the business community.

In particular, I write to encourage you to introduce your proposed legislation to

re-authorize the CALFED program and to provide funding for the enhancement of

the water supply and ecosystem in the State of California. The business community

in Silicon Valley concurs with your assessment that California’s electricity crisis is

a stark lesson of failure to properly plan ahead to meet our growing needs. The business community does not want to see this lesson repeated with water supply.

We are delighted to see that a number of projects and programs critical to Santa

Clara County’s water supply, water quality, and environmental needs are included

in the legislation. Working with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, we look forward to the introduction of your proposed legislation and working with you and your

95

staff as the bill language gets developed and refined to ensure that all interests of

the various stakeholders are addressed, and that no particular interest is advanced

to the detriment of others.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this important legislation that

will provide statewide benefits for many years to come. Please do not hesitate to

contact me should you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

JIM CUNNEEN,

President and CEO.

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS,

Oakland, CA, June 6, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The Association of Bay Area Governments recently established the ABAG-CALFED Task Force (see attached roster of current members).

Members of the task force and members of the Bay Area public believe that the core

of the CALFED solution is restoration of the Bay and Delta. The road to California’s

water future relies on a long-term commitment to the restoration of the Bay and

Delta. This integrated approach, promoted by CALFED, needs your full support.

The Task Force supports the principles and actions proposed in both the CALFED

Framework for Action and the Record of Decision. We believe that the CALFED Program provides a vision for how all Californians can work together to improve the

Bay-Delta ecosystem, stabilize water supplies and improve drinking water quality

through a robust, integrated and balanced program.

We support your efforts to develop federal legislation that will re-authorize federal

funding for the CALFED Program over the next several years. Our efforts to achieve

critical CALFED objectives in the Bay Area are dependent on a reliable source of

both state and federal funding. We believe that all elements of the CALFED Program must move ahead in a balanced manner that reflects both the CALFED Principles of Implementation and the specific programmatic commitments made in the

ROD, and that any federal funding authorization for CALFED should be consistent

with those principles and commitments. At the same time, at the regional level, we

will educate local governments and the general public about the CALFED Bay-Area

strategy, and ensure that the CALFED Program is integrated with local environmental restoration and water management efforts.

Thank you again for your continued efforts on behalf of the CALFED Program.

Yours very truly,

MIKE RIPPEY,

Board of Supervisors, Napa County,

Chair, ABAG-CALFED Task Force.

SWEETWATER AUTHORITY,

Chula Vista, CA, June 20, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: I am writing on behalf of Sweetwater Authority to express our support for S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water

Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.

As a local water retailer with a strong interest in the protection of both the supply

and the quality of drinking water for our customers, Sweetwater Authority fully appreciates the magnitude of the challenges the State of California faces in this area.

S. 976 is critical legislation that will provide comprehensive solutions to these pressing water needs in California. By working together on this statewide effort, we can

ensure that the continuing growing demand for water is met in concert with the environmental protection, which is important to all.

Thank you for taking the lead on this legislation to improve the availability, quality and reliability of water in our state.

Sincerely,

AL R. SORENSEN,

General Manager.

96

LONG BEACH WATER DEPARTMENT,

Long Beach, CA, June 21, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.

Re: Senate Bill 976 (Senator Feinstein)—CalFed Authorization—Notification of

SUPPORT

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: It is my pleasure to communicate to you the Board of

Water Commissioners’ support for Senate Bill 976. The Board of Water Commissioners provides an uninterruptible supply of high quality drinking water to the

461,000 people in California’s 5th largest city, the City of Long Beach. The City relies on imports to meet half of its drinking water needs, much of this water coming

from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta watershed.

S. 976 will increase water quality and reliability in the Bay/Delta impact area,

which includes Southern California, by creating off-stream storage so that more

water from wet years can be stored and used during dry years, and by authorizing

about $3 billion in much-needed Federal spending for hundreds of important

projects and programs in this watershed.

On behalf of the Board of Water Commissioners, it is my pleasure to thank you

for your efforts to secure long-term water reliability and quality for the people and

economy of the State of California.

Sincerely,

STEPHEN T. CONLEY,

President, Board of Water Commissioners.

LOWER TULE RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

Porterville, CA, June 22, 2001.

Hon. KEN CALVERT,

U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CALVERT: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Lower

Tule River Irrigation District, I am writing to express our District’s support for the

Western Water Enhancement Security Act of 2001 (H.R. 1985). In addition, I would

like to thank you for taking time to meet with myself and the District’s Board President Robert Bowman in Washington D.C. on June 14th of this year.

We believe that the Act goes along way in fulfilling the mission of the CALFED

program by authorizing a long-term, balanced effort to address California’s water

supply and water quality needs. It is encouraging to see proposed legislation that

balances the needs of the California water community and is not solely focused on

environmental issues.

Your legislation also recognizes the long neglected need of moving aggressively in

the development of new storage and conveyance facilities. The strength of California

and the future of our state lie in being pro-active in the development of water related systems that are critical to all elements of California.

The success of the comprehensive effort envisioned by H.R. 1985 is vitally important to our District. We serve an agricultural water supply to more than 100,000

acres and countless family farms in the Friant Division on the east side of the SanJoaquin Valley.

We commend you for your leadership on this difficult and complex issue and for

your determination to move CALFED legislation forward rapidly. The Lower Tule

River Irrigation District pledges to work constructively with you to improve H.R.

1985 to address important issues of concern to our District. .

Very truly yours,

DANIEL G. VINK,

General Manager.

KERN-TULARE WATER DISTRICT,

Bakersfield, CA, June 26, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Subject: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985

Dear Senator Feinstein: The Kern-Tulare Water District strongly supports S. 976

and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed this year to re-authorize the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

97

The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water management

and environmental restoration project in our state’s history. It plans vitally needed

improvements of water supple reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict between human water needs and the environment.

Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the Program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for district projects throughout California. In

the Delano area, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s resources will improve water reliability, assist in upgrading distribution system facilities, improve water use efficiency, and improve energy use efficiency.

As California continues to grow, we will quickly outgrow the investments made

in water resources infrastructure over the past 30 years. If something isn’t done immediately, the state will soon face critical water shortages on a routine basis. We

can’t afford to neglect our infrastructure any longer.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered by CALFED. For that

reason, the Kern-Tulare Water District urges your support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985.

Sincerely,

STEVEN C. DALKE,

General Manager.

WOODBRIDGE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

Woodbridge, CA, June 27, 2001.

Hon. XAVIER BECERRA,

Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BECERRA: The Woodbridge Irrigation District strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed this year to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water management

and environmental restoration project in our state’s history. It plans vitally needed

improvements of water supply reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict between human water needs and the environment.

Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for district projects throughout California. In

our own community, the CALFED Bay-Delta program’s resources will improve

water quality, assist in flood control, upgrade pumping facilities, promote fish and

wildlife restoration, recreation, public safety and drought assistance.

California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest investments

made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis has shown, there is a

tremendous price to pay for being caught without adequate resources—whether it

is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply. We can’t afford to neglect our infrastructure.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered by CALFED. For that

reason, the Woodbridge Irrigation District urges your support for S. 976 and H.R.

1985.

Sincerely,

ANDERS CHRISTENSEN,

Manager.

CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT,

San Andreas, CA, June 27, 2001.

Hon. Congressman JOHN T. DOOLITTLE,

Longworth Building, Washington, DC.

Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985

CONGRESSMAN DOOLITTLE: The Calaveras County Water District strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan Federal legislation needed this year to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water management

and environmental restoration project in our state’s history. The CALFED program

provides for vitally needed improvements of water supply reliability and quality in

the Delta, reducing the history of conflict between human water needs and the environment.

98

Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for district projects throughout California.

Calaveras County Water District (District) is currently completing several surface

water and ground water investigations within the Calaveras River watershed. The

District intends to incorporate this information into an application to the CALFED

Bay-Delta Program for a proposed Calaveras River Conjunctive Use Feasibility

Study and Pilot Program. During drought periods New Hogan Reservoir on the

Calaveras River does not provide adequate water for the growing areas of Jenny

Lind and Rancho Calaveras in Calaveras County. Storing wet weather flow in the

70 square mile groundwater basin located in the Camanche/Valley Springs area of

Calaveras County will provide a drinking water supply for these communities during periods of drought. Your support of funding for the above program would provide

significant benefits to Calaveras County residents living within the Calaveras River

Watershed. The District is looking to S. 976 and H.R. 1985 to provide funding for

this essential project.

California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest investments

made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis has shown, there is a

tremendous price to pay for being caught without adequate resources—whether it

is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply. We can’t afford to neglect our infrastructure.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered by CALFED. For that

reason, the Calaveras County Water District urges your support of S. 976 and H.R.

1985.

Sincerely,

SIMON GRANVILLE,

General Manager.

ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DUSTRICT,

Fremont, CA, June 28, 2001.

Hon. PETE STARK,

Cannon House Office Bldg., U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE STARK: The Alameda County Water District (ACWD)

strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed this

year to re-authorized the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water management

and environmental restoration project in our state’s history. It plans vitally needed

improvements of water supply reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict between human water needs and the environment.

Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for district projects throughout California. In

our own community, the CALFED Bay-Delta program’s resources will improve

water quality, water supply reliability and assist in new water conservation programs.

California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest investments

made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis has shown, there is a

tremendous price to pay for being caught without adequate resources—whether it

is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply. We can’t afford to neglect our infrastructure.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered by CALFED. For that

reason, ACWD urges your support for S. 976 and H.R. 1958.

Sincerely,

JAMES G. GUNTHER,

Board President.

99

RIO ALTO WATER DISTRICT,

Cottonwood, CA, June 29, 2001.

Hon. WALLY HERGER,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC.

Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HERGER: The Rio Alto Water District strongly supports S.

976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed this year to reauthorize the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water management

and environmental restoration project in our state’s history. It plans vitally needed

improvements of water supply reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict between human water needs and the environment.

Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat projects and provides

vital loan and grant resources for district projects throughout California. In Tehama

County, the CALFED Bay-Delta program’s resources will improve water quality, assist in flood control, upgrade pumping facilities, promote fish and wildlife restoration, recreation, public safety and drought assistance.

California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest investments

made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis has shown, there is a

tremendous price to pay for being caught without adequate resources—whether it

is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply. We can’t afford to neglect our infrastructure.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered by CALFED. For that

reason the Rio Alto Water District urges your support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985.

Sincerely,

ROGER SHERRILL,

General Manager.

MOJAVE WATER AGENCY,

Apple Valley, CA, July 3, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Thank you for your commitment to improving the quality and reliability of California’s water supply through S. 976. Mojave Water Agency

(MWA) applauds you for your foresight in planning for California’s water future.

California’s water supply needs strong legislation like S. 976 to ensure our water

future. MWA is especially interested in the ‘‘comprehensive’’ nature of the bill,

which will fund projects in all parts of the State for the improvement of water supply reliability.

With proper planning carried out collectively by local, State and Federal stakeholders, California can avoid a disaster happening to the water industry similar to

what has occurred to the energy industry. S. 976 is an important part of this plan.

Thank you for introducing this important legislation.

Sincerely,

KIRBY BRILL, P.E.,

General Manager.

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Cerritos, CA, July 12, 2001.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 976 Support

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) appreciates the leadership that you have demonstrated with the introduction of S. 976. We are pleased to report that the WRD is in full support of your

legislation. We are also in support of H.R. 1985 (Calvert) and commend the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The WRD manages groundwater, which meets 40% of the water demand needs

for 4 million residents in south Los Angeles County. As the regional groundwater

management agency for 43 cities, WRD ensures that a reliable supply of high qualVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:06 Feb 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\77-326 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
100

ity groundwater is available through our clean water projects, water supply programs, and effective basin management principles. Additionally, the WRD seeks to

optimize the groundwater basins to decrease the region’s dependence on imported

water and increase usage of local water resources.

The WRD looks to the CALFED Program as a vehicle to help reduce the conflict

between the water needs of our state’s population, economy, and the environment.

As the largest and most comprehensive water management program and environmental restoration project in our state’s history, the CALFED Program will provide

for critical improvements to water supply reliability and Delta water quality.

Both S. 976 and H.R. 976 implement the program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat programs, and provides vital loan and grant resources for local projects throughout California. For our

own region, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program will help to improve water quality and

overall water supply reliability.

A secure California water future requires the full range solutions offered by

CALFED. The WRD have and will continue to contact other members of our congressional delegation to urge their support on your legislation and H.R. 976 to reauthorize CALFED.

Sincerely,

BRUCE A. MOWRY, PH.D., P.E.,

General Manager.

UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,

Santa Paula, CA.

Hon. ELTON GALLEGLY,

Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.

Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGLY: The United Water Conservation District

strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed this

year to re-authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water management

and environmental restoration project in our state’s history. It plans vitally needed

improvements of water supply reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict between human water needs and the environment.

Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program’s Record of Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for district projects throughout California. In

our own community, Ventura County, the CALFED Bay-Delta program’s resources

will improve water quality, assist in flood control, upgrade pumping facilities, promote fish and wildlife restoration, recreation, public safety and drought assistance.

California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest investments

made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis has shown, there is a

tremendous price to pay for being caught without adequate resources—whether it

is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply. We can’t afford to neglect our infrastructure.

California’s water challenges demand the solutions offered by CALFED. For that

reason, the United Water Conservation District thanks you for your support for S.

976 and H.R. 1985.

Sincerely,

DANIEL C. NAUMANN,

President of the Board.

Æ