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

88-057 PS 2003

CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Saturday, June 28, 2003, in Tulare, California 

Saturday, June 28, 2003, in Elk Grove, California 

Tuesday, July 1, 2003, in El Cajon, California

Serial No. 108-35

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

George Radanovich, California 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Devin Nunes, California 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

George Miller, California 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on June 28, 2003, in Tulare, California .......................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 4

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

Cardoza, Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 9

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

of California ................................................................................................... 6

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

California ....................................................................................................... 10

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

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

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 7

Statement of Witnesses: 

Christopher, Marc E., Policy Advocate, Friends of the River ....................... 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Clark, Thomas N., General Manager, Kern County Water Agency ............. 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Glover, Tom, Deputy Director, California Department of Water 

Resources ....................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Moralez, Gloria P., Businesswoman/Farmer, Fresno, California ................. 23

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

Nelson, Daniel G., Executive Director, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 

Authority ....................................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Upton, Kole, Chairman, Friant Water Users Authority ............................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18

Watkins, Keith, Second Vice President, Tulare County Farm Bureau ........ 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Additional materials supplied: 

Basila, Jon, Basila Farms, Madera, California, Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 72

Birmingham, Thomas W., General Manager/General Counsel, Westlands 

Water District, Fresno, California, Letter submitted for the record ........ 73

Chedester, Steve, Executive Director, San Joaquin River Exchange 

Contractors Water Authority, Letter submitted for the record ................. 74

Cunha, Manuel, Jr., President, NISEI Farmers League, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 75

Denham, Hon. Jeff, Senator, 12th District, State of California, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 3

Fox, Dennis, Bakersfield, California, Letter submitted for the record ........ 76

Houk, Randy, Manager, Columbia Canal Co., Statement submitted for 

the record ....................................................................................................... 77

Huffman, Jared, Project Manager, San Joaquin River Restoration Project, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Letter submitted for the record ...... 78

Kriebel, Barry F., President, Sun-Maid Growers of California, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 81

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on June 28, 2003, in Elk Grove, California .................................... 83

Statement of Members: 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 84

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 88 

Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 86

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

of California ................................................................................................... 86 

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 83

Statement of Witnesses: 

Aceituno, Michael E., Area Supervisor, Sacramento Area Office, 

Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Prepared statement of .......................................................... 158

Bobker, Gary, Program Director, The Bay Institute ..................................... 124

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 127

Charlton, Mark, Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project 

Management, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 157

Forster, Richard, Chair, Water Committee, Regional Council of Rural 

Counties Representative ............................................................................... 106

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 108

Herrick, John, General Counsel and Manager, South Delta Water 

Agency ............................................................................................................ 109

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 111

Majors, Dennis G., Engineering Program Manager, Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California .................................................................... 113

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 115

Letter dated July 8, 2003, submitted for the record .............................. 123

Letter dated August 20, 2003, submitted for the record ........................ 124

Martel, Patricia, General Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission ................................................................................................... 92

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

Nota, Christine, Regional Forester’s Representative in Sacramento, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Prepared statement of ................................... 169

Oller, Hon. Thomas ‘‘Rico’’, State Senator, First District, State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 88

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 90

Rodgers, Kirk C., Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................... 148

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 149

Schwinn, Karen, Associate Director, Water Division, Region 9, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Prepared statement of ....................... 155

Sutton, Jeffrey P., Executive Director and CEO, Family Water Alliance ... 95

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 97

Van Vleck, Nicole, Board Member, Northern California Water 

Association ..................................................................................................... 130

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 131

Zlotnick, Gregory A., Board Member, Santa Clara Valley Water District .. 99

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 101

(VII)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on July 1, 2003, in El Cajon, California ......................................... 177

Statement of Members: 

Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 185 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 177

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 178

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

California ....................................................................................................... 181

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 184

Letters and documents submitted for the record ................................... 268

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

of California ................................................................................................... 179

Statement of Witnesses: 

Allen, Lloyd, President, Board of Directors, Imperial Irrigation District .... 202

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 204

Anderson, D. Larry, Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado River 

Commission ................................................................................................... 195

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 197

Burgess, Grace, Executive Director, San Gabriel Basin Water Quality 

Authority ....................................................................................................... 234

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 235

Camp, Edwin, Chairman of the Board, Western Growers, Prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 251

Guenther, Herbert R., Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources . 199

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 200

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

Agencies ......................................................................................................... 241

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 243

Nichols, Mary, Secretary, California Resources Agency, State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 191

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 193

Ortega, Ada ́n, Jr., Vice President, External Affairs, Metropolitan Water 

District ........................................................................................................... 209

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 210

Puentes, Julie, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs, Orange County 

Business Council ........................................................................................... 247

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 249

Rinne, William E., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ................................................................. 187

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 189

Robbins, Steven B., General Manager-Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley 

Water District ............................................................................................... 207

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 208

Spivy-Weber, Frances, Executive Director for Policy, Mono Lake 

Committee ..................................................................................................... 237

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 238

Stapleton, Maureen A., General Manager, San Diego County Water 

Authority ....................................................................................................... 211

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 213

Additional materials supplied: 

Bilson, Steven William, Chairman and CEO, ReWater Systems, Inc., 

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................... 260

Page

VIII

Additional materials supplied—Continued

Finnegan, Joan C., President, Municipal Water District of Orange 

County, Letter submitted for the record ..................................................... 262

Guardino, Carl, President and CEO, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 263

Marciochi, Don, General Manager, Grassland Water District, Statement 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 264

Pack, Anthony J., General Manager, Eastern Municipal Water District, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 266

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON CALIFORNIA 

WATER SUPPLY 

Saturday, June 28, 2003 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Resources 

Tulare, California 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., at the 

Heritage Complex, 4500 South Laspina, Tulare, California, Hon. 

Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Calvert, Radanovich, Nunes, 

Napolitano, and Cardoza. 

Also Present: Representative Pombo (Ex Officio.) 

Mr. NUNES. I want to thank you and Congressman Pombo for arranging this hearing. I want to thank the other members of the 

Committee for coming out here to the San Joaquin Valley. And I 

especially want to thank all of you in the audience for taking the 

time to come to this official hearing of the U.S. Congress. 

It is very important that we show the folks back in Washington, 

D.C., that people are serious about water here, and I think that 

this is evident, Mr. Chairman, by the well-attended audience that 

we have here this morning—especially on a Saturday morning—

which is always difficult. 

With that, it is time to have the Boy Scouts, which is the Troop 

Number 251, under the direction of Troop Leader Joseph Nelson 

with us today, to post the colors. 

Please, rise as the scouts present our flag. 

[Off the record.] 

Ms. CONWAY. Thank you, very much. David has agreed to let me 

speak first. He said, ‘‘Age before beauty.’’ Actually, that is not what 

he said. 

On behalf of the county, I am very pleased to welcome you here. 

We appreciate Congressman Nunes in inviting the delegation here. 

To the Chairman and to the members, on behalf of the 400,000 

members of Tulare County, welcome, and we appreciate your interest and your time. 

My board is here in full support; Chairman Maples, Supervisor 

Worthly, Supervisor Sanders, and myself. I know there are representatives from our neighboring counties. I saw Madera. I saw 

Kings. All of us welcome this hearing. The Chairman would probably say, as he is prone to do, ‘‘As far back as he can remember, 

2

and he says that is forever, something like this has never happened,’’ so we are very appreciative of the opportunity. 

‘‘Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting for,’’ so are the 

words of Mark Twain. I don’t know if he had the Central Valley 

in mind when he said those words, but we appreciate this opportunity to share our thoughts with the Congressional Delegation 

and welcome them and their efforts to help us. 

Thank you, very much. 

Mr. MACEDO. Connie and I spend so much time around each 

other, my wife is starting to wonder. 

I would like to welcome Congress here to the city of Tulare. We 

are very proud to be hosting this. We are very happy to see all of 

you from the neighboring communities in our town to—for such an 

important issue. 

I am going to keep it even briefer than Connie did, but I did 

want to make this statement: One of the things that is so important is that the farmer gets his water. I keep hearing, ‘‘The urban 

versus the agriculture.’’ But if the farmer gets his water, he can 

continue to provide an affordable product to the consumer here in 

the United States. And as we know, we still eat cheaper in the 

United States than any other country in the world, so we commend 

this over to folks here today, and we wish you the best, and we 

thank you for coming. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. I also would like now to recognize some 

additional dignitaries and elected officials that we have in the 

crowd. Please, hold your applause. 

From the Tulare County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Steve 

Worthly, Supervisor Connie Conway, Supervisor Jim Maples, Supervisor Bill Sanders. From Madera County, we have Supervisor 

Frank Bigelow, who I believe is here. I think that Vern Moss is 

here, who I saw earlier; Supervisor Vern Moss. We also have a 

councilman from the city of Fresno that I’m very delighted to see 

here, Mr. Duncan, Jerry Duncan. The mayor of Orange Cove, 

Mayor Lopez. Thank you, Mayor. The Mayor of Tulare, David 

Macedo. We also have from Congressman Cal Dooley’s office, that 

is Shara Wolfe, if she would please stand also. 

Thank you, and if we could please give them a warm round of 

applause. 

I also want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their 

schedule to come and testify before the Committee. I want to thank 

all of you for being here also this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit the following for the record: The prehearing rally transcript, which I have 

available here. I want to also submit all the storyboards and video 

from the Friant Water Users Authority. 

I have a statement here by California State Senator Jeff 

Denham; a statement by the Westlands Water District; a statement by Basila Farms; and a statement by Sun-Maid Growers. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statement of Senator Denham follows:]

3

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 


88057.013
4

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank you, gentlemen. I thank you, Congressman. Certainly you are very proud of your community, and your 

community should be very proud of Congressman Nunes. He is 

doing a great job in Washington, and thank you for helping organize this hearing today. So far, it is going great. 

We are also privileged and honored to have the Chairman of Full 

Committee of Resources with us today, Richard Pombo. I will ask 

Chairman Pombo for any opening statement he might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Nearly, everyone agrees with the need for more water supplies, but too little has 

been done to meet the growing demands for this increasingly scarce resource. More 

than 30 years has passed since California has made any major investment to improve its storage and conveyance systems. To illustrate this point, thousands of acre 

feet of water were spilt recently from Friant Dam because of a lack of adequate storage capacity on the Upper San Joaquin. It’s no wonder that many here today are 

concerned about having their short and long-term water needs met. 

Complicating this matter is a reduction of Colorado River deliveries to California. 

As most of you know, the state will have to reduce its dependency on the Colorado 

River from past levels by 18%. Complying with this requirement will not be easy, 

especially in light of demands placed on the water supply by an ever growing population and the reallocation of several hundred thousand acre feet of contracted water 

supplies for environmental needs over the past 10 years in this region. 

To hear firsthand from experts on the ground, the Water and Power Subcommittee is conducting a series of field hearings throughout the state over the next 

few days. We have started this process, here, in Central California where the need 

for a focus on water storage and water conveyance is most acute. My distinguished 

colleague, Mr. Nunes, has taken the first step in alleviating this problem through 

legislation, signed by the President, that requires a feasibility study on new surface 

water storage at Temperance Flat. 

Today’s important and historic hearing will help us do even more. Hearing from 

today’s experts will be yet another step in finding solutions. Today we will hear 

about ways to build surface water storage and enhance water banking efforts, how 

water supplies can be maximized by expanding water transfer agreements, and the 

efforts underway to improve moving water through the Delta while protecting in–

Delta farming and fishery interests. 

I plan to use today’s hearing as another step towards developing legislation to accomplish the goals we all share: more surface storage, better conveyance with water 

quality protections, private property rights protections, balanced CALFED implementation, and fiscally sound ecosystem restoration principles. I look forward to 

working with my colleagues as this Subcommittee marches forward on this important legislation. 

I welcome the Chairman of the Resources Committee, my other distinguished colleagues and the special guests we have invited here today, and I very much look 

forward to hearing how we can better work together to manage and share this valuable water resource. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you. I would like to start off by thanking 

Congressman Calvert for holding these hearings on this important 

issue that is facing California. 

As I think most of you know, water is vital to a healthy and productive California. Without a sufficient water supply, all of 

5

California from ag to urban, from environmental to industrial, will 

suffer. 

When farmland lays idle due to lack of water, the farmer, the 

farmworker, and the industries that supply the inputs to the farmer are negatively impacted. When cities are not able to provide 

water to industries or the population, jobs are lost and economies 

are depressed. 

California has not kept up with the growing demand for water. 

We have added very little surface storage over the past 20 years; 

yet our needs have increased. 

With the ever-growing demand for water by urban and environmental needs, we need to find new water and storage options; trying to solve our water shortage needs by transferring water from 

agriculture to urban or environmental needs is not a solution. 

These transfers do not address the root of the problem, which is a 

lack of water. 

CALFED was put together to try and address many of these 

issues; yet after years of analyzing and spending hundreds of millions of dollars, one has to question, ‘‘Where is the water? Have we 

all gotten better together?’’ as the early CALFED mantra stated. With over $249 million just in Federal money, not to mention 

state money, being spent over the past 4 years on ecosystem restoration, and only $27 million having been spent on just to—spent 

on just studying the storage needs, one wonders, ‘‘Are we moving 

forward and getting better together?’’. 

In the Delta, the heart of the water system for the state of 

California, many problems still exist. Water quality is an important 

issue for many who rely on the Delta for their water; yet, it has 

not really improved significantly since CALFED has been established. And one question is if it will. 

Levee stability is critical not only to those who live in the Delta, 

but to the whole water supply system. Yet, it still takes money in 

studies and mitigation in some cases than to do the actual levee 

work necessary to ensure a safe and stable levee system. Was not 

CALFED supposed to streamline this process? 

In order for CALFED to be successful, it must address many of 

these outstanding issues. We must have more storage, better water 

quality, oversight on how many millions of dollars are being spent 

in coordination between the agencies to ensure a rapid permitting 

process for the necessary projects. 

I, again, want to thank Congressman Calvert and Congressman 

Nunes for all their work in putting together this hearing. Mr. Calvert in all the work he has done over the past several years on 

water issues of impacting California. I know this is an extremely 

important issue to all of us, and having the opportunity to be here 

and hear from the people in Congressman Nunes’ district is beneficial for all of us, so thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Nearly everyone agrees with the need for more 

water supply, but too little has been done to meet the growing 

demand for the increasingly scarce resource. 

More than 30 years has passed since California has made any 

major investment to improve its storage and conveyance systems. 

To illustrate this point, thousands of acre feet of water were spilt 

6

recently from Friant Dam because of a lack of adequate storage capacity on the Upper San Joaquin. It is no wonder that many here 

today are concerned about having their short- and long-term water 

needs met. 

Complicating this matter is a reduction of the Colorado River deliveries to California. As most of you know, the state will have to 

reduce its dependency on the Colorado River from past levels by 18 

percent; that is about 800,000 acre feet of water. 

Complying with this requirement will not be easy, especially in 

light of demands placed on the water supply by an ever-growing 

population and the relocation of several hundred thousand acre feet 

of contracted water supplies for environmental needs over the next 

10 years in this region. 

To hear firsthand from experts on the ground, the Water and 

Power Subcommittee is conducting a number of field hearings 

throughout the state over the next few days. We started the process here in Central California where a need for a focus on water 

storage and water conveyance is most acute. 

My distinguished colleague, Mr. Nunes, has taken the first step 

in this problem through legislation signed by the President that requires a feasibility study on new surface storage at Temperance 

Flat. 

Today’s important and historic hearing will help us do even 

more. Hearing from the experts will be yet another step forward in 

finding solutions. We will hear about ways to build surface water 

storage, enhance water banking efforts, how water supplies can be 

maximized by expanding water transfer agreements, and the efforts underway to improve moving water through the Delta while 

protecting in-Delta farming and fishery interests. 

I plan to use today’s hearing as another step toward developing 

legislation to accomplish those goals we all share; more surface 

storage, better conveyance, and water quality protections, private 

property rights protections, balanced CALFED implementation, 

and fiscally sound ecosystem restoration principles. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues as this Subcommittee marches forward on this important legislation. 

We have other colleagues, of course, with us today throughout 

the state of California. And with that, I am going to turn it over 

to Mrs. Napolitano, the Ranking Democratic Member for her opening statement, from right there in Los Angeles, California. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

agree with Chairman Pombo that you are to be commended for continuing dialog on California’s most precious resource, and—besides 

its people, its water. 

We appreciate thoroughly your attendance, because it is only 

through you—I am an old lady—through you that we can understand the issues more thoroughly and be able to grasp the types 

of legislation and the impact that it is going to have, not only on 

the farmers here in this northern part of California—understand I 

am from L.A., so you gather the difference. 

7

We must work together, north/south, for the benefit of the whole 

state. There is no other way. And I might add that—and very 

frankly, it may step on a few toes—many of my colleagues in 

Washington for the other states do not want to see California be 

able to get the assistance it needs to be able to put through the 

programs that are going to help. 

It is a matter of money, and the dissemination thereof, and I am 

telling you from my vantage point—I am not speaking for anybody 

else except for me—we must work together to be able to bring 

those programs together to get them passed, so that we can fund 

those projects that are going to help everybody maintain the life—

promote California product, promote California economy, and promote California’s great standing in this world. 

Mr. Chairman, we were here almost 2 years ago talking hopefully to try to get CALFED passed. It didn’t happen. Let’s hope 

that we can get more information that is going to bring all the 

partners together so that we have an equitable solution to getting 

CALFED passed. 

The feedback that we receive is not only necessary, it is critical. 

It is us understanding the local problems and local issues, and the 

impact on California’s economy; not only in the north, but also in 

the south that is going to help us to be able to work together. 

I am here to listen and to learn, and I look forward to hearing 

the testimony. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Radanovich. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank Chairman Calvert and also Chairman Pombo, for holding 

this hearing today. I especially want to recognize—thank the witnesses, but also recognize one in particular, Kole Upton, who is 

Chairman of the Friant Water Users Authority, who is just about 

the only constituent I have left in the—since redistricting, is that 

I used to represent part of Tulare County as well. 

But, currently—and I think these statistics are worth putting 

into the record—currently, according to California Department of 

Water Resources, California’s 78 million acre feet of developed 

water is allocated in the following fashion: 46 percent of the water 

is used by the environment, 43 percent is used on farms, and 11 

percent is used in homes and businesses. 

Water supplies for human uses, both ag and urban, have declined 14 percent since 1990. My concern with this trend is that 

our state’s population is expected to grow approximately 46 million 

by the year 2020. Without major water supply enhancements, our 

families will not have adequate drinking water in the near future. 

Furthermore, our state’s $27 billion agriculture economy, a large 

portion of which is based here in the Central Valley, cannot 

continue to thrive without increased water yield through the 

construction of water infrastructure. 

Congress is working to ensure that such construction occurs as 

soon as possible. As many of you know, I have joined my colleague 

and friend, Devin Nunes, to push for the creation of water storage 

8

in the upper San Joaquin River above Friant. We are seeking to 

secure $4 million in the Fiscal Year 2004 Federal appropriations 

to continue the upper San Joaquin Storage Feasibility Studies, 

which will lead to more available water in the Valley for agricultural, environmental, and urban uses. 

In addition, I have worked with my Valley colleagues this past few years to obtain about $1 million in Environmental—EPA 

funds—for environmental restoration efforts along the San Joaquin 

River. 

Phase 1 of the restoration effort is currently underway, and I am 

especially pleased that the Resource Management Coalition and 

the San Joaquin River Task Force—some of whose membership is 

here today—have been driving—have been the driving strength in 

my congressional district to make the endeavor a reality. 

The Task Force demonstrates a commitment of local residents 

and local elected officials who are taking action toward restoring 

the San Joaquin River in a meaningful way. 

For my part, I will soon be introducing legislation commissioning 

a National Academy of Sciences study to determine the best measures that can be taken to restore the San Joaquin River. The Academy will be required to report their findings to Congress, and I 

hope to work with my constituents and colleagues here today to 

move this legislation through the Congress. 

Though this hearing is not focused on this issue, I want to speak 

briefly about the CVPIA, or the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. It has been 11 years since this Act came into law, and 

our region has invested a great deal of resources to make this law 

work. Conservation, land retirement, crop changes have all been 

implemented by the agriculture community in order to achieve the 

objectives of the CVPIA. 

Water supply reliability, though, has suffered, and the region’s 

agriculture water needs have gone largely unmet; even in normal 

and wet water years. 

To the detriment of both the environment and agriculture in the 

Valley, the CVPIA has significantly raised water prices. Tier pricing under the CVPIA, for example, has made it extremely expensive to operate conjunctive use systems. Growers pay enormous 

prices for the water to be stored, extracted, and delivered, and this 

creates a clear disincentive for ground water storage. 

A more flexible approach to tiered pricing would encourage contractors to conserve and reuse products. Such flexibility is necessary for CVPIA to be successful. I hope to hear suggestions today 

as to how the Act could be better administered. 

In addition, and even though we are not holding this hearing on 

this issue, I think it is important to mention something about 

CALFED. 

In 1994, CALFED was a program created to develop long-term 

solutions for all—as Chairman Pombo mentioned—for all water 

users creating a balanced process to provide for agriculture and environment and human uses. 

The motto back then as my Chairman mentioned, ‘‘We all get 

better together.’’ Unfortunately, this motto has not driven the 

CALFED process, and the people of California are the ones suffering. 

9

The vast majority of the $280 million of Federal funds spent so 

far on CALFED has been spent on environmental projects. Some of 

these environmental projects have merit; in fact, most of them do. 

However, the environment cannot continue to benefit both to the 

exclusion of agriculture and urban water needs, and I fear that if 

the CALFED program continues to place the environment ahead of 

human needs, our state will find itself in the midst of a water crisis 

of catastrophic proportions. 

Although I have been critical of CALFED, I am committed to 

working to renew the program’s human purpose as outlined in its 

own mission statement ‘‘to advance water management practices 

for all users.’’ Simply put, this means that more water yield in the 

state, which means construction of more water facilities. 

Again, I want to thank Chairmen Pombo and Calvert for holding 

this important hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Cardoza, also a resident of the Central Valley. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS CARDOZA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be very 

brief today. I want to thank you for coming to our great Valley. 

Thanks to Mrs. Napolitano for coming up here as well. 

We have a great working relationship of the Valley Delegation. 

Mr. Dooley, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Radanovich, and I all work together very well on this issue, and I thank them for welcoming me 

into their club this year. 

I want to just say two things very quickly: First of all, that—for 

those of you who didn’t hear, he said I was Portuguese, so I qualified. Well, I had the prerequisite. 

I just want to say a couple of things, and I will say it very simply. We need water storage. We needed it yesterday. I am here to 

listen to see how we are going to get it, and how we are going to 

move forward. And, personally, I am not for any more new initiatives that don’t include new water. 

We have to have new storage. We have to have new supply or 

the Valley is not going to be able to compete economically. That 

just is not an acceptable alternative. 

So with that, I am ready to listen, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 

coming to our part of the world. 

Mr. CALVERT. I think we are evenly matched here. We have three 

Portuguese and the rest of us. 

With us today on the panel is Mr. Tom Glover, the Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources; Mr. Kole 

Upton, the Chairman of the Friant Water Users Authority. Ms. 

Gloria Moralez, businesswoman/farmer from Fresno; Mr. Daniel G. 

Nelson, the Executive Director to the San Luis & Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority; Mr. Marc E. Christopher, Policy Advocate for 

Friends of the River; Mr. Thomas Clark, General Manager of the 

Kern County Water Agency; and Mr. Keith Watkins, the second 

vice president of the Tulare Farm Bureau. 

10

I forgot Mr. Nunes. I just—I didn’t forget, but he has an opening 

statement. Before we recognize our witnesses, Mr. Nunes, you have 

an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NUNES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if it 

is good or bad for Mr. Cardoza and myself, but when you are the 

freshmen out, they oftentimes just forget about you. You sit on the 

end of the table, and by the time everyone has talked, there is very 

little left to say, so with that—I just want to—I do want to introduce, because I did forget, Mrs. Jenny Barker who is with Assemblyman Bill Maze’s office. And I also want to introduce the mayor 

of Chowchilla, Mr. Harris, if they would please stand. I think 

they’re here. There they are in the back. Thank you for coming. 

Mr. Radanovich stole all my thunder, which normally happens 

back in Washington also, but I just want to say that, to be very 

clear, that the only solution for the San Joaquin Valley, southern 

San Joaquin Valley, is another reservoir behind Friant. That is the 

only solution. You will hear lots of other solutions out there, but 

the whole Valley needs to rally behind this project, because it is 

one that is both feasible and viable for the people of this Valley, 

and will create new water, which is what the prior speakers talked 

about. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of 

the panel, and I yield back. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CALVERT. We will start with Mr. Tom Glover, the Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources. Mr. Glover, we are operating under the 5-minute rule. I believe there is a 

timer here. We will have plenty of time for questions, please—we 

will attempt to do that. I know sometimes you may need a little 

bit of extra time, but we will try to keep to it. 

STATEMENT OF TOM GLOVER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

Mr. GLOVER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Tom Glover. I am Deputy Director for 

the State Water Project, Department of Water Resources. 

You have your—you have my testimony before you, and in my 

testimony, I talk about where we are with expanding our pumping 

capacity through the Delta, and also some information on the 

CALFED budget. 

What I would like to focus on this morning is where we are with 

the 8,500 in banks and our attempt to increase our pumping capacity through the Delta. 

As you recall, the CALFED ROD calls for 8,500 moving from 

6,680 cfs to 8,500 cfs pumping plant and eventually moving to 

10,300 cfs. 

Where we are with that, we are moving ahead with the 8,500 cfs, 

and we are—also will be installing permanent barriers within the 

Delta for water quality and water level issues. 

11

Over the last couple of years, we have been meeting with our 

counterparts in the Federal Government, both reclamation and the 

Regulatory Fish and Wildlife working toward a solution. 

A series of meetings—we were not able to really narrow down a 

single preferred plan, so this year we are moving ahead; and we 

are moving our environmental documents ahead in kind of a wide 

range of operational alternatives all the way from the most friendly 

to the environment up to maximizing water deliveries. 

What we expect to do this year is we expect to by the year end 

of calendar year arrive at a preferred option. And by, let’s see, 

late—that is in October of this year. By September of 2004, we are 

looking to secure our permits for the additional pumping capacity. 

And by the end of calendar year 2004, we expect to be implementing the additional pumping capacity. In 2008, we will complete construction of the permanent barriers using the temporary 

barriers in the meantime. 

Another question that you had asked is our counterparts, the 

Federal Government, and our interaction with them to complete 

this project. 

Obviously, one of our most important counterparts is the Bureau 

of Reclamation. They operate the Central Valley Project. We operate the State Water Project. We are jointly responsible for water 

quality issues in the Delta. 

It is important that as we move ahead with increased pumping 

capacity, that we coordinate with our Central Valley Project most 

effectively utilize the additional capacity. 

Additionally, the regulatory folks that we deal with are U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. They will be submitting 

biological opinions on our selected projects. 

And, finally, United States Army Corps of Engineers, they will 

be submitting a Section 404 permit, and also a Section 10 permit 

for the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

Obviously, for us to say that we will complete this project by the 

end of next year, we are going to have to work closely with our 

counterparts in the Federal Government to make this happen. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:]

Statement of Tom Glover, Deputy Director,

State of California Department of Water Resources 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to be here today. My name is Tom Glover, and I serve as Deputy Director of the 

California Department of Water Resources. I am pleased to present the State of 

California’s perspectives on the CALFED Bay–Delta Program and water supply 

issues impacting the Central Valley and the entire state. 

The Subcommittee has asked me to touch upon two topics. One relates to the efforts of the Department of Water Resources to increase the State Water Project’s 

Delta export limit to 8,500 cubic feet per second and, ultimately, to 10,300 cfs, and 

to any Federal agency coordination or cooperation necessary to implement the increase. The second topic is the impact the State’s budget shortfall is having upon 

funding the CALFED Program. 

The Department of Water Resources is a member of CALFED and is a State lead 

agency for the CALFED Program elements covering storage, conveyance, levees, 

water use efficiency, water transfers, and watershed management. In January of 

this year, the California Bay–Delta Authority was established to implement the 

CALFED Bay–Delta Program. DWR is responsible for implementing many of the individual projects within the CALFED Program and is integrally involved in develVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
12

oping the budgets for these efforts. Information contained in this testimony regarding funding for the CALFED Program overall has been developed by the Authority 

in close coordination with individual State and Federal agencies. For ease of presentation, I am covering both topics. 

Efforts to Increase SWP Delta exports to 8,500 cfs 

The Record of Decision for the Programmatic EIR/S for the CALFED Bay–Delta 

Program calls for an increase in the maximum allowable pumping limit at the SWP 

export facilities from the current level of 6,680 cfs to 8,500 cfs. The ROD also specifies a subsequent increase of the pumping limit to 10,300 cfs in association with new 

fish screens at Clifton Court Forebay and the construction and operation of permanent operable barriers in the south Delta. 

At the time the ROD was prepared, the cost of new fish screens at Clifton Court 

Forebay was largely unknown. Since that time, the projected cost of the envisioned 

fish screen facility has been refined and is estimated between $1.0 - $1.2 billion dollars. This large cost and the uncertainty among fish biologists of the value of screening for all endangered fish prompted a reassessment of the plan contained in the 

ROD for south Delta improvements. 

Considering these factors, the CALFED Program agencies decided in 2002 to reduce the scope of the South Delta Improvements Program to address increasing the 

SWP export capability to only the 8,500 cfs level and constructing permanent operable barriers in the south Delta. Increasing the SWP export limit to 10,300 cfs will 

follow once the method of screening is defined. The exact method of screening Clifton Court Forebay will require additional study, which is expected to include a test 

facility at the Central Valley Project’s Delta pumping plant. In addition to increasing the SWP export limit to 8,500 cfs and installing permanent operable barriers, 

the SDIP includes channel dredging and relocating some existing agricultural diversions in selected areas in the south Delta channels. 

Figure 1 illustrates the study area in the south Delta and the actions proposed 

under SDIP. 

Per the ROD, increasing the SWP export capacity to 8,500 cfs requires the development of a ‘‘project-specific operations plan that addresses the potential impacts of 

increased pumping’’ and that the plan ‘‘will be developed through an open CALFED 

process’’. 

With this requirement in mind, DWR convened a series of meetings with Federal 

and State representatives and various stakeholders between January 2002 and October 2002 to solicit input on the potential components of the operations plan for 

8,500 cfs and to identify areas of agreement. 

Several alternative sets of rules for operating the SWP to the 8,500 cfs limit were 

developed through this process. No single plan emerged as the obvious preferred operation. Because of significant outstanding issues associated with the operations 

plan, DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation have decided to issue a draft EIR/S for 

SDIP that encompasses a ‘‘range’’ of operation alternatives. It is anticipated that a 

specific 8,500 cfs operation plan will be identified by the end of 2003 and will consider other programs and activities related to Delta operations which require decisions this year. The related activities are the extension of the Environmental Water 

Account, the intertie connecting the California Aqueduct and the Delta–Mendota 

Canal, long-term contract renewals for the Central Valley project, and sharing the 

water made available under the settlement regarding the Sacramento River water 

users’ responsibility for meeting Delta water quality standards. 

The schedule contained in the ROD has the 8,500 cfs operation beginning by mid–

2003. Due to delays in identifying a preferred alternative for the operational rules 

governing the use of 8,500 cfs, this schedule has been delayed about one year. The 

current schedule for implementing the SDIP is as follows: 

• Release SDIP Draft EIR/S for Public Review: Late October 2003

• Issue SDIP Final EIR/S: Early June 2004

• Secure Permits for 8500 cfs and barriers: September 2004

• Implement 8500 cfs operation: October 2004

• Complete construction of permanent barriers: December 2008

State bond funds for $56 million are specifically earmarked for permanent barrier 

construction. The total estimated cost for barrier construction is $68 million. We anticipate the remaining $12 million would be paid by SWP and CVP contractors with 

possible cost sharing from the Federal Government. 

Federal Agency Coordination/Cooperation 

Development, approval, and implementation of the SDIP requires coordination 

with and the cooperation of the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, NOAA Fisheries, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

13

The Bureau, as the operating agency of the Central Valley Project, and DWR, as 

the SWP operating agency, coordinate very closely in the operation of the two 

projects. The projects are jointly operated to meet Delta water quality standards and 

the sharing of this responsibility is governed by rules contained in the Coordinated 

Operation Agreement (1986). When capacity is available at the SWP export facilities, water can be pumped for the CVP. Approval for this operation (commonly referred to as a joint point of diversion) is dependent upon maintaining sufficient 

water levels in the local south Delta channels for the agricultural diverters. Sufficient water levels are maintained by the temporary agricultural barriers currently 

being installed by DWR and, in the future, by the permanent barriers proposed in 

the SDIP. In addition, the Bureau is directed by the Central Valley Improvement 

Act to install the fish-protection barrier currently being installed by DWR, and proposed in the SDIP, and to mitigate the impacts of that barrier upon the local agricultural divertors downstream. For these reasons, the Bureau is the Federal lead 

agency for assuring the SDIP meets requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, the Bureau is working closely with DWR to explore 

ways increasing the SWP export limit to 8,500 cfs can help recover some of the CVP 

water supply dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes under CVPIA. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers are Federal permitting agencies for the SDIP. The resource agencies 

will be analyzing the impacts of the project upon fish and wildlife. DWR is working 

with these agencies to identify mitigation actions required under the Federal Endangered Species Act and other actions consistent with the CALFED Multi–Species 

Conservation Strategy for incorporation into the actions contained in the SDIP. 

The Corps of Engineers will be conducting an independent review of SDIP under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Section 10 of the River and Harbors 

Act. 

Coordination between all agencies is an important factor for implementing the 

SDIP. However, inter-agency cooperation is essential in selecting the final operation 

rules for the 8,500 cfs limit, identifying the components of the selected project, and 

assuring operating to the 8,500 cfs limit begins in Fall, 2004. These components include the operation rules governing the increased export, the associated improvement in SWP water supply and the Environmental Water Account, commitments to 

funding for maintenance activities and local diversion improvements, and additional 

ecosystem actions to contribute to recovery of endangered species and improve conditions for non-listed species. For the SDIP schedule to be met, the selected project 

should be decided early next year and Federal permits received by September, 2004. 

A related activity that requires close cooperation between State and Federal agencies is preparation of an updated Operations Criteria and Plan, or OCAP. This document will serve as a baseline description of the facilities and operating environment 

of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. We are committed to 

working closely with Reclamation to ensure that, together, we can produce an OCAP 

that properly describes our operations and can serve as a solid foundation for Endangered Species Act consultations and CVP long-term contract renewals. 

Impact of State’s Budget Shortfall on CALFED Funding 

The California Bay Delta Program is in the third year of program implementation. At the time the Record of Decision was signed in 2000, the financial status 

of the State and Federal Governments was much more positive. The ROD estimated 

that for the first 7 years (Stage 1) an estimated $8.6 billion (State, Federal and 

Local/Water User funding) would be needed to support all activities. 

Funding available to meet program objectives has been provided from all sources 

over the first 3 years of the program. As shown in the attached bar chart (Figure 

2), funding has primarily been provided by State and local/water user sources. For 

the State contribution, even with the significant reduction in General Funds, the 

California Bay Delta Program has received substantial funding (approximately $450 

million each year), primarily from bond funds (Propositions 204, and 13). Local 

funding has been provided primarily as part of the local cost share required for Title 

XVI recycling projects (ranging from $60 to $200 million per year). Water user funding has averaged approximately $50 million each year, which includes State Water 

Project funds and CVP Restoration Funds. Federal funding has been primarily provided from the Bureau of Reclamation and has averaged approximately $50 million 

per year also. 

When the ROD was signed, it was anticipated that funding would come equally 

from Federal, State, and local user sources. To date, 60 percent of the funding has 

come from the State, 32 percent from users and local funding, and 8 percent from 

the Federal Government. 

14

Also attached are bar charts displaying funding by program element (Figure 3) 

and by CALFED objective (Figure 4). These bar charts describe how the funding to 

date (Years 1–3) has compared to the funding projected in the ROD. The program 

elements that have been impacted the most due to lack of funding are Water Use 

Efficiency, Delta Levees, Drinking Water Quality and Science. While funding gaps 

have occurred through Year 3, most program elements will be receiving significant 

additional funding in Years 4, 5 and 6 from State Proposition 50 bond funds. The 

primary program element still affected by funding delays is the Drinking Water 

Quality Program, because Federal funding has not been made available and because 

funding was not specifically targeted for CALFED DWQ in Proposition 50. 

Future funding for the California Bay Delta Program in Year 4 is displayed in 

the attached table (Table 1) based on the Governor’s May Revise (fiscal year 03–

04) and the President’s proposed budget (fiscal year 04). The primary funding available in Year 4 is from Proposition 50. These funds are expected to support the Program for 2–3 years. After Year 5 additional funding will be needed from Federal, 

State and other sources. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for inviting me to share 

the State’s perspectives on these important issues. I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 


88057.001
15


88057.002 88057.003
16

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Kole Upton, Chairman of the Friant Water 

Users Authority. 

STATEMENT OF KOLE UPTON, CHAIRMAN,

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY 

Mr. UPTON. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? OK. My 

name is Kole Upton. I am a farmer. I live in Chowchilla in the 


88057.004 88057.005
17

Friant Service area. I am a family farmer. I live on my farm. My 

sons live on my farm, and my dad started the farm years ago. 

There are 15,000 family farmers in the Friant Service Area. It 

consists of about a million acres, and it stretches from Merced 

County to the north, and Kern County to the south. Within the 

same service area, there is about 1 million people that also live in 

the Friant Service area that indirectly or directly depend on Friant 

Service Water to exist. 

Friant Dam was built to replenish the underground aquifer that 

was depleted during the ’20’s and ’30’s. It was presented as a government opportunity for people to come here and farm 160 acres 

or better, and change the desert back into a garden. It is a government program that has been remarkably successful, but it is in 

jeopardy now because of lack of additional water storage. 

The key to Friant is its location. It is central in California, and, 

therefore, it is critical to solve the Californian’s water needs. Whatever you do here is going to have an effect on the north and the 

south. 

We in Friant are trying to reach out and start working with 

people on either side of us in order to try and augment solutions. 

I don’t think we can expect you folks in Congress to do anything 

for us with your colleagues in Congress if we can’t get along together here in California. 

So one thing that we do and we are working with Metropolitan 

Water District of Los Angeles currently toward a water quality exchange. The water out of Friant is pure, and it comes in—in fact, 

it is so pure it cannot go in the ground in some places in Friant, 

and it needs some impurities. Well, Metropolitan has graciously 

agreed to provide the impurities. 

They receive some water from the Delta, and we can do a quality 

exchange, which will improve our reliability and also give us a 

powerful ally in water situation. 

We are also working with the people to the north; Merced, Modesto, Turlock, all the way and including the city and county of San 

Francisco, the VAMP Program, Vernalis Adaptive Management 

Program. This sweetens the Delta and does ecological enhancement 

in the river up in that area. 

To the west of us, we have finally made peace with the 

Westlands Water District. We are now working together with those 

folks, so that everybody in the Valley is working together. 

We have also reached out to nonwater folks, such diverse folks 

as the United Farm Workers, for instance, which farmers usually 

don’t have a lot in common with, but one thing that we have found 

and they have found is that without water, we don’t have farms, 

and their folks don’t have jobs. 

I, last, commend the Board of Supervisors of Madera and Fresno 

counties. They unanimously put together the San Joaquin River 

Task Force, and invited many water interests to join, including us, 

exchange contractors, and other stakeholders. They are also gracious enough to invite the National Resources Defense Council, a 

national environmental organization, that has a lot of interest in 

this area, because of their lawsuits. Unfortunately, they refused to 

participate and refused to work with the local interests. 

18

Lastly, I would like to point out the building of Temperance Flat 

and how we should look at that, in my opinion. You are going to 

hear a lot of testimony that it is going to cost you $400 and $500 

an acre foot to get that water out of Temperance Flat. That is the 

wrong way to look at that. I look at it the same as you look at a 

four- or five-year-old child, we spent $200,000, $300,000 educating 

that child in order to be a doctor, or God forbid, a lawyer, or something like that. 

We can very easily economically go across to another country and 

buy that Ph.D., and have them come here. But we are, as a society, 

like an educated population. That tells us what kind of people we 

were. 

It is the same with Temperance Flat Dam. We need to invest in 

our own infrastructure, invest in our own people, and invest in our 

own food supply for future generations. We do not want to depend 

on a foreign country for food supply. And the solution to that in the 

Central Valley is Temperance Flat. 

Lastly, you folks came here to have some question answered, I 

guess your question is: ‘‘What do we need to help us in the future 

in the Central Valley?’’ Congressman Nunes said it, ‘‘It is Temperance Flat. When do we need it? We need it now.’’. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

Statement of Kole M. Upton, Chairman,

Friant Water Users Authority 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I very much appreciate being given the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee to provide information about the state of our water supply reliability in 

the Friant Division (Friant) of the Federal Central Valley Project (‘‘CVP’’). I would 

like to focus on a critical Federal role in helping develop much-needed additional 

water storage facilities on the upper San Joaquin River in Central California, particularly in the area known as Temperance Flat. I am testifying today as the Chairman of the Friant Water Users Authority and as a family farmer in the Friant Division service area. 

It is truly an honor and privilege to be invited to offer testimony to the Subcommittee. I am grateful for the Subcommittee’s recognition that the concept and 

need for additional water storage in California is alive and very real, rather than 

being a dead issue as so many in the environmental movement would like to characterize the necessity for new dams and reservoirs. My testimony today will focus on 

the San Joaquin River, Friant’s CVP water source, and its critical need for additional water storage for environmental enhancement, flood control and existing beneficial uses. However, it is important to note that the San Joaquin River’s needs are, 

in many ways, merely a reflection on the vital necessity of meeting needs for future 

water storage created by rapidly growing population and environmental pressures 

elsewhere in California. 

As you know, Friant water from the CVP and San Joaquin River is the vital fuel 

that powers much of the multi-billion dollar economy and creates tens of thousands 

of jobs in parts of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. Friant Dam 

was built to supplement the underground aquifer that exists under the Friant service area. This aquifer had become depleted during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Thus, 

many farms and communities were literally drying up. Friant Dam achieved its purpose by initiating a process called conjunctive use, utilizing a combination of surface 

water and groundwater to provide an adequate, stable and affordable water supply. 

The surface water was used when available and the underground was saved for dry 

years and droughts. It is a process that until recently has worked remarkably well. 

Mr. Chairman, the issues and problems we are talking about here today are not 

about water. They are about people—the people of the San Joaquin Valley; the 

people most affected by any decisions made that impact water supplies. Friant 

water serves 15,000 farmers and 1,000,000 acres. Through the percolation of its surface water to the underground aquifer, it also helps maintain the water supply for 

19

approximately one million people living in or near the Friant service area. Thus, 

anything that affects Friant deliveries will affect surrounding communities, their 

residents, their livelihoods and their way of life. 

One valley generation after another has made a living through hard work and 

sacrifice. The written testimony I am pleased to offer to your Subcommittee will examine this marvelous valley of ours, a land that has been created by determined 

people thanks to farsighted efforts to provide dependable supplies of water. I will 

also address our region’s critical water needs, particularly in the development of additional supplies through new surface storage. 

Introduction 

I am Kole M. Upton, Chairman of the Friant Water Users Authority. My ranch 

in southern Merced County receives CVP water through the Chowchilla Water District, of which I am a Director. The Friant Water Users Authority is a joint powers 

authority formed under state law comprised of 24 member agencies that all receive 

water from the Friant Division of the CVP. 

The Friant service area is comprised of approximately one million acres of the 

world’s richest farmland. It ranges from the southern part of Merced County, all the 

way to the base of the Tehachapi Mountains in Kern County. The majority of the 

service area is in Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. This area annually 

produces about $4 billion in gross agricultural production with a tremendous variety 

of crops. The majority of the area is dedicated to permanent plantings of grapes, 

nuts, tree fruit and citrus. Friant also has 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. Friant boasts of some of the 

highest irrigation efficiencies found anywhere in the world. 

The Friant Division 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. Friant 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 among Reclamation projects in the West in that it 

employs a two-class system of water deliveries. Class 1 water is the first water 

(some 800,000 acre-feet) to develop behind Friant Dam and is typically delivered to 

those parts of the service area that have limited or no access to groundwater supplies. Class 2 water develops only after it becomes apparent to the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation that all Class 1 demands can be met. Class 2 water 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 in-lieu of using their wells, and through direct recharge—

percolating water in recharge basins, natural waterways and unlined canals into the 

underground aquifers. The Friant Division has been in service for more than 50 

years and has been successful in arresting a serious condition of groundwater overdraft that existed prior to the project. However, a condition of critical groundwater 

overdraft still exists in parts of the Friant service area and in neighboring areas 

in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Congress authorized the CVP in the late 1930s, taking the project over from the 

State of California when the Great Depression made it impossible for the state to 

sell general obligation bonds that had been authorized by voters to build the 

Project’s initial stages, including principal Friant features, between 1938–57.. 

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 

the annual delivery of 840,000 acre-feet of water to the western San Joaquin Valley 

near Mendota (commonly referred to as the Exchange Contract). As a result, the 

Friant is dependent upon other CVP features, including Shasta Dam, the Tracy 

Pumping Plant and the Delta–Mendota Canal, to facilitate this required exchange. 

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 

20

provides for the release of water from Friant Dam to meet Exchange Contractor 

demands. Such a release has never had to be made. 

All of these arrangements and developments occurred because of recognition that 

hard work by the earliest valley generations could not overcome, on its own, a lack 

of available water supply. Most of Friant’s one million acres had been developed to 

permanent crops but heavy pumping in the 1920s and 1930s overdrafted groundwater in many areas to the point of exhaustion and severe land subsidence. 

So the Federal Government made a deal with the people along the valley’s East 

Side: In exchange for a water supply system, thousands of farmers and their communities agreed to invest in farms, homes, equipment, cities, towns and infrastructure to put the water to work. Congress gave its full blessing, later endorsed 

through Supreme Court decisions. The government provided opportunity. Valley 

folks seized it and made the most of it. Very few Federal programs have been so 

successful. 

Now this program stands in jeopardy because certain elements of the environmental community believe Congress made a mistake when it authorized the Friant 

Division. Those radical elements believe the purposes for which Friant was created 

should now be subordinated to the goal of re-establishing a salmon fishery that disappeared more than half a century ago. Perhaps Congress would make a different 

decision today if it were faced with a decision to construct the Friant Division; however, the reality is that your predecessors made a decision, and we are where we 

are. 

California’s Growing Water Supply Crisis and the San Joaquin River 

As officials of the Friant Water Users Authority have pointed out in previous testimony before this Subcommittee and other Congressional Committees, California is 

beginning to confront the reality of a chronic water shortage within the state and, 

in particular, the San Joaquin Valley as a region. 

Within the San Joaquin Valley and throughout California, population growth continues to drive the need for developing additional water supplies. Very few new 

water projects have been completed over the past 25 years. The state has had to 

live off of the ‘‘extra’’ capacity of the systems our forefathers designed and built decades ago. Now, most of that extra capacity is gone. Only limited ability now exists 

to supply Californians during a drought of just a few years. 

At the same time, needs associated with the development of the environmental 

movement have had enormous impacts. Passage and implementation of the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and other regulatory actions to protect and 

enhance the environment have resulted in less and less water being available for 

human uses, including agricultural production. The San Joaquin Valley certainly 

has suffered. Water supplies such as those in the Westlands Water District and 

elsewhere along the West Side that were historically dependable are now unreliable. 

The valley’s well-documented groundwater overdraft has been significantly worsened as a result of lessening availability of surface water supplies. 

The reliability of Friant Division water supplies remains at risk as a result of litigation brought in 1988 by a number of environmental and fishing organizations. Remaining aspects of that litigation seek to return sufficient flow to the San Joaquin 

River for the restoration of a salmon fishery below Friant Dam. Estimates, many 

made by highly respected scientists, of the need for additional water to restore this 

fishery range in the many hundreds of thousands of acre-feet per year. 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. 

Unfortunately, a stay to this litigation developed by the parties in 1999 has ended 

because the NRDC’s environmental coalition has opted to return the case to the 

courts. 

In so doing, the NRDC coalition has again vividly demonstrated the true colors 

of too many of those who so avidly wave the environmentalist banner to the detriment of the lives and well being of others. Far from being constructive members 

of society in search of workable solutions, too many of these individuals and organizations are radical elements that seek political and social power, and work with 

great skill and dedication to disrupt the broader ways of life to which the overwhelming majority of our nation’s hard-working population subscribes. Inflexible 

and unreasonable positions taken by many in the environmental community on virtually all water-related issues seem to have become the standard by which everything else, including the realities of irrigated agriculture in the water-short San Joaquin Valley, are judged. The time has come to demand constructive, rather than obstructive, engagement by these radical environmental forces with their private agendas that are so detrimental to the well being of the American economy and broader 

21

society. The threat of their tiresome lawsuits should be no guarantee, as it is now, 

that these environmental organizations must be included in whatever the waterissue loop happens to be. 

Today, the pendulum has shifted so far toward environmental advocacy that those 

of us continuing to honor the deal made with the government 60 years ago and 

merely attempting to defend our families, our livelihoods and our way of life find 

ourselves heaped with scorn. Generally, the environmental advocates who are the 

most self-righteous, indignant and demanding tend to live the farthest away from 

the communities the more severe of their often-extreme policies would decimate and 

the lives they would leave shattered. 

There simply must be better solutions to our water issues than the sort of legal 

power plays Friant water users have had to battle for 15 years. There has to be 

balance, fairness and compromise. Reality must be recognized. So must the fact that 

people’s lives are at stake. 

Friant worked cooperatively with NRDC for four years in studying ways to enhance and improve the San Joaquin River. I am pleased that our four-year settlement process with NRDC and its environmental coalition made progress. We 

learned much about what can and cannot reasonably be done to enhance the San 

Joaquin River. This attempt at litigation settlement was especially fruitful in the 

early years and resulted in obtaining much valuable data and techniques about the 

effective use of water in restoration activities. An example is the tremendous increase in knowledge gained about the use of the same water for both agricultural 

and environmental purposes. It is a shame that NRDC opted to return to the courts 

rather that finish the job we all started four years ago. 

NRDC’s solution and objective seems to be to have a salmon run on the river. Our 

analysis of the joint studies is that such a run is not reasonable, prudent or feasible. 

Until NRDC unilaterally stopped the appropriate studies, the data was showing the 

folly of spending the public’s money in order to try to restore a salmon run in a 

reach of river that has largely been without riparian resources for such an extended 

period. 

One such study was the study of temperatures of the water in Millerton Lake behind Friant Dam. The type of fishery appropriate for a river system is largely temperature dependent. Cold water will permit a salmon fishery to survive. Warmer 

water provides optimal conditions for other types of fish and they are usually mutually exclusive. The studies showed that Millerton Lake’s water temperatures are so 

warm that releases from Friant Dam, no matter the quantity, would not allow salmon to survive in the San Joaquin River above the Merced River. Furthermore, San 

Joaquin River water from Friant would, upon reaching the Merced River confluence, 

would be so warm that it would damage the existing salmon run on the Merced 

River. Since these results did not fit in to NRDC’s preordained desired outcome, the 

study was stopped. It is irresponsible to spend the public’s money on something that 

we know will not work, and would even harm an existing ecosystem. 

That said, let me assure the Subcommittee that Friant Water Users are committed to the San Joaquin River’s environmental improvement and enhancement 

while preserving our way of life. We are continuing to work with other stakeholders 

who feel the same. We welcome any environmental group that wants to join constructively in this effort. Friant has consistently found ways to work with former 

adversaries in search of solutions that benefit all interests, and will continue to do 

that with respect to the San Joaquin River. 

Effects of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), which Congress enacted in 

1992, has obviously had tremendous effects upon all aspects of the CVP. The CVPIA 

has contributed to problems related, in general, with the CVP’s water supply and, 

in particular, to the conjunctive use program upon which the Friant system was 

largely planned, devised and implemented a half century and more ago. 

Prior to CVPIA’s enactment, during wet years districts were able to bring in surface water at low cost during the winter months to encourage farmers to pre-irrigate 

row crops, fill up the lower profile of the root zones of crops such as alfalfa and orchards, and run water down creeks and other natural and artificial recharge systems. All of these activities had the effect of replenishing the underground aquifer 

and reducing the use of surface water during the hot months. Water costs have escalated ten fold since 1988 for Friant Users, with between a third to one half of the 

increase attributable to CVPIA charges. The impact has been to render groundwater 

recharge activities economically infeasible. 

Even though the CVPIA is not the focus of this hearing, let me say that 11 years 

after the law’s passage, the time has come for a thorough Congressional review of 

this law. 

22

The Need For Additional Surface Water Storage 

What is most needed to environmentally improve the San Joaquin River and sustain the valley’s way of life are new sources of water. We know how to stretch existing supplies and we have discovered ways to beneficially reuse water. What we really need is more storage, behind a dam such as Temperance Flat in the upper end 

of Millerton Lake. 

Aside from the well-documented fact that the entire south valley region is water 

short, the reasons why additional storage is a necessity are fairly simple. The San 

Joaquin River must have a source of ‘‘new’’ water for any meaningful environmental 

and fishery enhancement to occur. Although opportunities for water reuse and 

groundwater banking may exist, they are obviously insufficient to capture and store 

the huge quantities of surplus flows generated during the flood events of hydrologic 

above average years. 

Millerton Lake’s record makes clear that Friant Dam, with a reservoir storage of 

520,500 acre-feet, is incapable of offering reserve storage. Millerton’s water management shortfalls, both for the San Joaquin River and Friant water users, were dramatically illustrated during a pair of recent events, one of which occurred just this 

month: • In 1997, a heavy autumn and early winter snowpack suddenly melted under the 

pounding of more than 20 inches of rain that fell in 24 hours as high as elevations of 12,000 feet in the San Joaquin River watershed. The result was a 

calculated natural flow that briefly reached a catastrophic level of 120,000 cubic 

feet per second and filled Millerton Lake to more than 10,000 acre-feet above 

capacity. Record releases of nearly 60,000 c.f.s. had to be made to the San Joaquin River, causing extensive damage to homes and farmlands along the river. 

Approaches to two bridges were washed away. The Bureau of Reclamation followed the immediate crisis with huge flood releases but, ironically, that winter’s 

storm activity suddenly and completely vanished. Despite this massive flood release year, Friant’s contractual water supplies ended up at only about 55% of 

contract amounts. • In June 2003, a combination of circumstances—a cool and wet spring, already 

high reservoir storage, lack of early season irrigation demand and a mid- to 

late–May series of heat waves—caused Millerton Lake to fill and spill over 

Friant Dam into the San Joaquin River for several days. The situation compelled the Bureau of Reclamation to make ‘‘Section 215’’ (surplus) water available, even for non-long term Friant contractors. The spill wasn’t all that much, 

adding up to about 8,300 acre-feet. However, this event occurred during a 

‘‘short’’ water supply year that is only about 85% of average. Incredibly, because 

of the heavy movement of water to help evacuate Millerton Lake storage during 

the spill, it is possible that the overall Friant water supply declaration could 

end up being slightly decreased this year by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

In each of these cases, the lack of storage capacity in Millerton Lake was the culprit. If we could generate meaningful added supply on a regular basis, I assure you 

that Friant’s expert water managers will figure out ways to do wonders for the environment and everyone else. 

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. That will require additional water storage. 

A new dam is desperately needed for this area. Temperance Flat is the right place 

for this dam. This dam would be an investment in the future of America. Do not 

be fooled by the creative accounting methods of those opposing any new storage 

structures. They will claim that any new surface storage would result in water costs 

of $400 to $500 per acre-foot and that no farmer could afford such a cost. Thus, they 

reason, no dam should be built. 

That is the wrong way to look at this situation. When a society invests in its own 

people, its own infrastructure and its future food supply, it is making an investment 

that will pay great dividends in the future. Why do we spend hundreds of thousands 

of dollars educating a child from age 5 until he or she achieves a Ph.D? Why not 

just save the expense and go hire someone with a Ph.D from another country and 

save a great deal of expense? The reason, of course, is that an educated society is 

a better society. It is an investment in the future and well worth it. Exactly the 

same reasoning holds true with the proposed dam and reservoir at Temperance 

Flat. Farmers with the help of the Federal Government have provided a low cost 

and reliable food supply for this country. That is something that this society should 

not discard. Relying on a potential enemy for a food supply is foolhardy. New water 

storage is an investment in agricultural self-reliance as well as environmental enhancement and meeting future needs created by inevitable population growth. 

23

New water supply infrastructure, including the new storage contemplated in the 

CalFed Bay–Delta Program 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. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, valley people love their land and communities. Our people favor 

and will support realistic and reasonable river enhancement but valley people need 

the tools so they, their homes, their livelihoods and their way of life can be saved 

along with the San Joaquin River. More water storage is that solution, for the river’s future and our own. 

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for the 

opportunity to testify and be part of such an important process. I assure you that 

the Friant Water Users Authority and its member agencies stand eager and willing 

to work with you to make these goals a reality. 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Gloria Moralez. 

STATEMENT OF GLORIA MORALEZ, BUSINESSWOMAN/

FARMER, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MORALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Gloria Moralez, and I am also a member of the State Reclamation Board of Directors, so I am familiar with the issue here 

at hand. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you, being that this is one of the most important and most critical 

issues that we have here in the Valley. As you may know, 

California is the world’s leader in agricultural production in the 

Central Valley, and the primary reason for that is because many 

years ago, the State of California and Federal Government succeeded in developing the Central Valley Project. 

As a farmer, I understand the importance of all the peripheral 

services needed to grow, harvest, and market the Valley’s crops. As 

a businessperson, I understand the importance of the agricultural 

economy to my customers. 

I have ground-level knowledge of how agriculture works and 

what it means for the farmworkers that make our agriculture economy function. According to the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

Enumeration Profiles Study as of September 2000, we have approximately 400,000 migrant and seasonal farmworker jobs in the 

San Joaquin Valley that depend on agriculture for their livelihood. 

The constant population growth through new immigrants with limited job skills and the demand for these jobs will continue to grow 

as a world population grows. 

Hispanics are not only the farmworkers who depend on agriculture for farm labor jobs. We are, in fact, also the fastest growing 

racial group as well as the fastest growing ethnic group in establishing new businesses; however, none of these efforts can continue 

if we do not have enough water to sustain the needs of agriculture, 

job creation, new businesses, new housing, et cetera. 

I speak for every citizen that resides in the San Joaquin Valley 

with a clear understanding of our need for additional water storage 

24

to continue to enjoy a high quality of life that good jobs can provide. Everyone who lives in this Valley is tied in one way or another to agriculture, and we need your help in appropriating funding for water storage projects to maintain and improve the Valley’s 

economic and environmental needs. 

Unfortunately, the current water storage in place such as Friant 

Dam, which holds only over half a million acre feet, is simply inadequate to provide for the level of water supply reliability needed to 

meet the ever-growing urban and rural population, and the everincreasing demands of the environment. 

Historically, the Friant water contracts hardly ever get 100 percent of their annual water supplies, even in wet years. We need to 

improve the water storage capability to meet the future needs of 

our Valley. 

As a member of the reclamation board, we have done some preliminary investigation to see how could we work with Friant Dam 

to enhance and have more water capacity; however, nothing that 

we have looked at looks feasible. Water storage in a more grand 

manner is necessary. Also the cost-benefit ratio that we will get by 

having more flood control and the safety for our citizens is of upmost importance. 

Increased water storage in this region will without a doubt take 

advantage of the volatility of nature’s water delivery by capturing 

and containing its periods of abundant delivery to better satisfy the 

demands of beneficial use in the context of today’s world. 

Possible benefits of increased storage are: Providing a reliable agricultural and domestic water supply; allowing deliveries to increase aquifer recharge; increasing electrical power producing potential; providing greater flood control ability; improving regional 

water quality; promoting river enhancements; and increasing recreational opportunities. 

In closing, I urge you that you please take our message to Congress and put all of your collective efforts into providing the necessary funding to adequately resolve this very urgent matter. 

Our participation here today is an event that will take years to 

resolve; however, in the past 5 minutes that I have spoken to you, 

our population has already grown. Let’s be wise and place water 

storage in our region your No. 1 priority to resolve. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I was requested by your office to please give a 

synopsis of this information into the record— 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, Ms. Moralez. I will recognize you in one moment. 

One thing I want to point out is that this is an official congressional hearing today, and any acknowledgments, either positive or 

negative, we would appreciate that not be done. We appreciate 

your cooperation in that matter. Thank you very much. 

With that, Ms. Moralez, you are recognized. 

Ms. MORALEZ. Thank you very much. (Further comments by Ms. 

Moralez in Spanish.). 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moralez follows:]

25

Statement of Gloria P. Moralez, Businesswoman/Farmer,

Fresno, California 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on an issue that is critically important to the San Joaquin Valley and 

the people that work and live here. As former farm worker, farmer and businesswoman I would like to explain to you why additional water storage projects are 

needed. 

As you may know California is the world’s leader in agricultural production and 

the Central Valley is the primary reason for that success. However, this was only 

possible through the wisdom of legislators much like you who had great a vision. 

Through proper planning and hard work long ago, the State of California and Federal Government succeeded in developing the Central Valley Project. The Central 

Valley Project through its Friant Division generates literally hundreds of different 

crops delivered around the globe, resulting in hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the regional economy. 

As a farmer, I understand the importance of all the peripheral services needed 

to grow, harvest and market the Valley’s crops. As a business person I understand 

the importance of the agricultural economy to my customers. 

I have ground level knowledge of how agriculture works and what it means to the 

farm workers that made our agricultural economy function. According to the MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER ENUMERATION PROFILES STUDY 

FOR CALIFORNIA as of September 20, 2000 we have approximately 400,000 migrant and seasonal farm work jobs in the San Joaquin Valley that depend on agriculture for their livelihood. The constant population growth through new immigrants with limited job skills will continue to grow and the demand for these jobs 

will continue to grow as the world’s population grows and agriculture continues to 

refine its technology to be more effective and productive. Hispanics are not only the 

farm workers who depend on agriculture for farm labor jobs: we are in fact also the 

fastest growing racial group as well as the fastest growing ethnic group in establishing our own businesses. However, none of these efforts can continue if we do not 

have enough water to sustain the needs of agriculture, job creation, new businesses, 

new housing, etc. I speak for every citizen that resides in the San Joaquin Valley 

with a clear understanding of our need for additional water storage to continue to 

enjoy a high quality of life that good jobs can provide. Everyone who lives in this 

valley is tied in one way or another to agriculture and we need your help in appropriating funding for water storage projects to maintain and improve the valley’s economic and environmental needs. 

Unfortunately, the current water storage in place such as Friant Dam which only 

holds just over half a million acre feet is simply inadequate to provide for the level 

of water supply reliability needed to meet the ever growing urban and rural population, and the ever increasing demands of the environment. Historically, the Friant 

water contracts hardly ever get 100% of their annual water supplies, even in wet 

years. We need to improve the water storage capability to meet the future needs 

of our valley. 

Increased water storage in the region, will without doubt, take advantage of the 

volatility of nature’s water delivery by capturing and containing its periods of abundant delivery to better satisfy the demands of beneficial use in the context of today’s 

world. 

Potential benefits of increased storage are real, many’’ and varied. They include: 

• Providing a reliable agricultural and domestic water supply 

• Allowing deliveries to increase aquifer recharge 

• Increasing electrical power producing potential 

• Providing greater flood control ability 

• Improving regional water quality 

• Promoting river enhancements 

• Increasing recreational opportunities 

In closing I urge you that you please take our message to Congress and put all 

your collective efforts into providing the necessary funding to adequately resolve 

this very urgent matter. Our participation here today is an event that will take 

years to resolve, however in the past five minutes that I have spoken to you our 

population has already grown, let’s be wise and place water storage in our region 

your number one priority to resolve. Thank you 

Mr. CALVERT. With that, Mr. Daniel G. Nelson, Executive 

Director, San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 

26

STATEMENT OF DANIEL G. NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 

Mr. NELSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Committee. Welcome to the San Joaquin Valley. My name is Daniel 

Nelson. I am the Executive Director of the San Luis and DeltaMendota Water Authority. 

And I would, first of all, like to commend the Chairman for his 

ongoing efforts in moving forward with the development of a balance in CALFED legislation; it is only through a balanced legislative effort that CALFED can be successful. 

And last but not least, I would like to commend Congressman 

Nunes for his leadership in advancing storage. Storage projects 

such as Temperance Flat are going to be necessary components of 

any long-term California program. 

And although additional storage is a critical component of any 

long-term California program, there are a couple of other components, and I have been asked to focus on those components of 

California water supply. 

I am going to use this graphic to assist in going through conveyance issues. First of all, as you can see in the northern part of the 

state, we have storage of Shasta, Whiskeytown, Trinity, Folsom 

and Oroville. In the southern part of the state is where the majority of the use is for both agriculture and the population. The dilemma that we have is the bottleneck here in the middle and the 

heart of the system, which is the Delta. 

The real challenge in managing California water resources is 

how it is that we manage and operate the Delta and move water 

from Northern California to the southern area while meeting the 

needs in the Delta? 

The points I want to emphasize regarding conveyance are, No. 1, 

conveyance is a very, very important component of how it is we 

manage water resources in the state. Two-thirds of the state’s population rely on this dynamic and a major portion of agriculture 

economy as well. 

The second point is inherent to this system is protecting the agricultural uses and the water quality within the Delta, and also 

being able to enhance the fishery—the fishery uses and also protecting Northern California uses as well. Those protections are inherent to whatever plan that we use with conveying water through 

the Delta. 

To take the mystery away from this, there really are just two 

components that factor into how it is that—how much water we 

can move through this system. No. 1 is the pumping plants’ 

capacity—and currently the Tracy pumping plant is at 4,300 to 

4,600 cfs, depending on the time of the year. And the Banks pumping plant is at 6680 cfs. CALFED in stage 1 anticipates that we 

can increase our permits up to 8,500 csf, and through an intertie 

increase the 4,300 to reliable 4,600 on the Tracy pumping plant 

side. 

The second component is the regulations and restrictions, essentially the rules that govern how it is that we operate these pumping plants and govern the windows of opportunities we have for 

using and moving this water through the Delta. 

27

There are three Federal statutes that simply govern this. One is 

the Endangered Species Act. The second is the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, and the third is the Clean Water Act. 

And these are the standard and regulation and how it is that govern how it is that we move water through the Delta. 

In summary, on conveyance, there are short-term needs that we 

need to accomplish immediately to accommodate this conveyance 

system. No. 1 is the permits at Banks need to be increased to 

8,500 cfs immediately. This was the quid pro quo and the CALFED 

plan, and we have had delays of well over a year. We need to move 

on and increase the permits to 8,500 cfs. 

The second is we need to intertie that is called the CALFED 

ROD between the Delta-Mendota Canal and the State Aqueduct. 

This allows us to increase on the Federal side from 4,300 to 4,600 

on a consistent basis. 

Another project that is called for on the ROD is to address low 

point issues at San Luis Reservoir. In effect, once we are successful 

in doing this, we have 200,000 acre feet of additional storage, usable storage out at San Luis, if we can be successful in dealing with 

low point issues. It also implicates conveyance opportunities, because with that additional storage, we can move additional water 

in the springtime, when those pumps are usually off, because we 

don’t have any storage opportunities to place that. 

Last but not least, we need to review the regulations that restrain the pumping in the Delta. We need to make sure that we 

are meeting the water quality and the environmental fishery objectives, but we need to make sure that we are doing this efficiently, 

and that we are using the best science available. 

I would now like to speak very briefly, obviously with these dynamics this takes an extraordinary amount of cooperation between 

the Federal project and the state project. 

Currently, that relationship is established by the Coordinated 

Operations Agreement that was developed in 1986. We—a lot has 

changed since 1986. And the projects have done as good a job as 

they possibly can in trying to use that as a tool, but be able to deal 

with the new circumstances that we find ourselves faced with. And 

there is tension between the two projects. 

But what I would like to emphasize is: I—I am very optimistic 

that there are opportunities for the two projects to coordinate, and, 

in some cases, integrate their operations, so that both projects benefit. We are committed to working with the state contractors in the 

state to accomplish that. 

Finally, on a fairly specific issue that is very important to our 

region—the Central Valley Project Improvement Act dedicated 

250,000 to 400,000 acre feet to wildlife refuges. As part of that, 

they directed the secretary of interior to go out and to diversify 

those supplies to minimize impact. 

We have implemented a lot of the components of CVPIA that restore the environment, but we haven’t implemented those components that would minimize the impacts to water users, and we 

need to. The CALFED ROD establishes that we do this. And so, we 

need to move forward with the diversification of Level 4 supplies, 

which is a pretty good chunk or percentage of our water supply 

south of the Delta. 

28

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

Statement of Daniel G. Nelson, Executive Director,

San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee: Good morning and welcome to the 

San Joaquin Valley. I am Daniel Nelson, Executive Director of the San Luis & 

Delta–Mendota Water Authority (the Authority), and I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today. 

At the outset Mr. Chairman, I commend you and the Subcommittee for holding 

this hearing in the San Joaquin Valley, where policies of the Federal Government 

have negatively impacted farmers, farmworkers and rural communities over the last 

decade. 

I also extend the Authority’s ongoing appreciation for your efforts to address 

California’s water problems in a balanced and realistic manner. Your commitment 

to introduce legislation that will ensure that Calfed moves forward to address water 

supply, environmental restoration and enhancement, and water quality issues on an 

equal basis is fundamental to the ultimate success of Calfed. 

Finally, I commend Representative Nunes for his leadership in seeking authorization to pursue additional water storage in the upper San Joaquin River basin. This 

is a vital first step in building the necessary foundation for new programs and policies to solve water problems in the San Joaquin Valley and throughout the state. 

New water storage is essential, and the Authority supports the feasibility evaluation 

of upper San Joaquin River storage projects proposed by Congressman Nunes. 

Key Points of Testimony 

Today, I will address the opportunities that Calfed could provide this region, in 

terms of conveyance and coordination between the Federal and state water projects 

and refuges. At the outset, I will summarize my testimony. 

• Conveyance of water through the Sacramento / San Joaquin River Delta to 

south of the Delta is a key component to the Calfed Program. Two thirds of the 

state’s population and a significant portion of the state’s agriculture rely on conveyance through the Delta. 

• A conveyance plan must include protections for in–Delta water users, water 

quality, environmental/fishery uses, and northern California uses. 

• The two key factors controlling conveyance opportunities are the pumping plant 

capacities and regulations governing the operations of the facilities. 

• Short-term capacity issues can be addressed by implementing portions of the 

Calfed Record of Decision that: 

(1) increases the State Water Project (SWP) Banks Pumping Plant permits to 

8,500 cfs; 

(2) constructs the Intertie between the Central Valley Project (CVP) Delta–

Mendota Canal (DMC) and the State Aqueduct; and 

(3) finalizes and implements the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Project. 

• Regulations at the pumping plants significantly restrict conveyance opportunities. These regulations need to be reviewed to assure that environmental/fishery 

objectives are being efficiently met. Moreover, the Calfed Science Program must 

ensure that good science is being developed and used in the review process. 

• Cooperation and coordination between the Federal and state water projects is 

essential to implementing a balanced successful Calfed Program. There are 

many opportunities for further coordination of operations, including sharing of 

facilities that would benefit both projects, to benefit all water users in a balanced manner, and to avoid major conflicts between the projects. The Authority 

is committed to working with state and Federal agencies as well as SWP contractors to accomplish this. 

• CVPIA provides for the diversification of sources of water delivered as Level 2 

refuge supplies. The Calfed ROD identifies improving the diversification of 

sources of supply as a means of improving CVP south-of–Delta supplies for CVP 

contractors. Appropriate resources should be dedicated to implement. 

THE SAN LUIS & DELTA–MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 

The Authority is a joint powers agency organized under California Law. Its 32 

member agencies are water and irrigation districts that contract with the Bureau 

of Reclamation for the receipt of water from the Central Valley Project (CVP). These 

member agencies provide water for irrigation to approximately 1,200,000 acres of 

land within the western San Joaquin Valley, San Benito County, and Santa Clara 

County, water for wildlife habitat including over 125,000 acres of critical waterfowl 

29

habitat within the Pacific Flyway, and water for municipal and industrial (M&I) use 

throughout the same area. The area served by the Authority’s member agencies is 

among the most productive farming regions in the nation. Farmers in this region 

produce over 60 different commercial fiber and food crops sold for the fresh, dry, 

canned or frozen food markets; domestic and export. With an adequate water supply 

they could produce crops worth more than $2 billion dollars. One of the Authority’s 

member agencies, Santa Clara Valley Water District, is responsible for providing 

water to 1.8 million people and to the vital high-tech computer industry known as 

‘‘SiliconValley’’. This multi-billion dollar industry is critical to the economic health 

of California and the nation. 

Agriculture, M&I and waterfowl habitat in our region depend significantly on conveyance of water through the Sacramento / San Joaquin River Delta, primarily at 

the CVP Tracy Pumping Plant. A bottleneck in this conveyance system results in 

water shortages to south-of–Delta users, even when water is plentiful and available 

for export. A major challenge for improving the management of California’s water 

resources is addressing this bottleneck. This bottleneck has been illustrated in the 

form of an hourglass and is attached to this testimony, (Attachment 1). 

There are opportunities to improve in how we move water through the Delta to 

meet the needs of those south of the Delta while protecting fish, water quality and 

users in northern California and in the delta. The Authority stands committed to 

work with this Committee, other water users, state and Federal agencies and Calfed 

to accomplish this delicate balance. 

In addition, efforts are underway to better coordinate the operations of the CVP 

and the SWP. It is anticipated that through better cooperation and coordination between the two projects that significant water supply, water quality and environmental benefits will be realized. 

CONVEYANCE ISSUES / OPPORTUNITIES 

Background 

Californians are the beneficiaries of a miraculous plumbing system, which has 

provided the state the opportunity to develop prosperity and a life style envied by 

the world. California’s plumbing system is comprised of two major categories of facilities, storage and conveyance. The storage facilities include a series of dams to 

store water in the winter and spring, when water is plentiful for subsequent use 

during dry periods. The conveyance facilities include pumping plants and canals to 

transport the water to far reaches of the state. The heart of this plumbing system 

is the Sacramento / San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), where two major river systems 

converge. In the Delta, the CVP and SWP operate major pumping plants to divert 

water for conveyance through the Delta–Mendota Canal (DMC), the Edmond G. 

Brown Aqueduct (Aqueduct), and the South Bay Aqueduct. 

Multiple factors affect water supply that can be made available through this system. They include weather, storage, upstream flows, in–Delta regulations, and conveyance capacity. Much attention has been given to the need to enhance the state’s 

water storage opportunities, and rightfully so. Increased demands for a growing population, water dedicated to the environment and the maintenance of a thriving agricultural industry necessitate that we expand storage availability. This is especially 

important to address the hydrologic volatility we have in the state by storing water 

during wet years for use in dryer years. Just as important as storage however is 

the ability to be able to convey this water to where it is needed. Indeed, because 

of increased regulations in the Delta, conveyance through the Delta has become the 

factor that most limits water supplies for a majority of Californians. This is especially so in below normal, above normal and wet year-types, when storage is generally sufficient, but limitations in conveyance cause shortages to south-of–Delta 

users. 

Conveyance Considerations 

The conveyance plan needs to take into consideration the competing needs of the 

delta. In–Delta uses and in–Delta water quality, fishery and northern California 

uses need to be taken into consideration and protected as part of a successful conveyance plan. 

Export Components of Conveyance (Refer to Attachment 1) 

The two major factors that limit the export of water from the delta are: 

(1) Capacity at the pumping plants; and 

(2) Standards / Regulations governing the use of the pumping plants. 

30

Pumping Capacities at the SWP and CVP Pumping Plants 

The Harvey O Banks Pumping Plant (Banks) and the Tracy Pumping Plant have 

a capacity of 10,300 cfs and 4,600 cfs, respectively. Under current permits, Banks 

is restricted to 6,680 cfs, with the expectation that through Stage 1 of Calfed, the 

permit will increase to 8,500 cfs and longer term to 10,300 cfs. The CVP Tracy 

Pumping Plant permit is 4,600 cfs, but is restricted to 4,300 cfs during certain times 

of the year when capacity on the upper DMC is limited. (See Intertie below).

Banks Pumping Plant Increased Permits to 8,500 cfs / 10,300 cfs 

A key feature of the Calfed Program is the increase of approved capacity of Banks 

Pumping Plant to 8,500 cfs. Increased pumping at Banks was part of the quid pro 

quo for other elements of the Calfed Program, including environmental and water 

quality improvements. As noted above, the Calfed ROD anticipated that increased 

pumping at Banks would occur in the short term, but delays of over a year have 

raised questions as to the sincerity of Calfed to move forward in a balanced manner. 

Intertie 

As a result of subsidence a few miles downstream from the CVP Tracy Pumping 

Plant, the capacity on the DMC has been reduced to around 4,300 cfs. An ‘‘intertie’’ 

from the DMC to the Aqueduct was identified by the Calfed ROD as the remedy 

for this issue. This intertie would allow water to be shuttled between the DMC and 

Aqueduct and would provide numerous operational benefits including restoration of 

pumping to historic levels (4,600 cfs) at the CVP Tracy Pumping Plant. This component of the Calfed Stage 1 Program should be funded and implemented immediately. 

San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project 

The Calfed ROD identified the need to address water quality and reliability problems associated with low water elevations in San Luis Reservoir. Santa Clara Valley 

Water District (SCVWD) received a $14 million Proposition 13 grant as the lead 

agency to study alternatives to resolving the low point problem. The goal of the Low 

Point Improvement Project is to increase the operational flexibility of storage in San 

Luis Reservoir and to ensure a high-quality, reliable water supply for the CVP San 

Felipe Division contractors. The increase in reservoir operational flexibility will 

benefit all CVP and SWP contractors. Specifically, the project has three primary objectives: 

(1) To increase the operational flexibility of the San Luis Reservoir by increasing 

the effective storage up to 200,000 acre-feet. This increase in effective storage 

will allow utilization of available delta conveyance in the spring of most years; 

(2) To ensure that San Felipe Division contractors are able to utilize their annual 

CVP contract allocation to meet their water supply and water quality commitments; and 

(3) To provide opportunities for project-related environmental enhancements and 

other improvements where feasible. 

In summary this project was a component of the Calfed package and enhances 

storage, conveyance and water quality. Support should be given to SCVWD to complete the study, environmental review process, design and implementation of the 

preferred alternative. 

Standards and Regulations Governing the Use of the Pumping Plants 

There are several layers of regulations that govern the operations of the Delta 

CVP/SWP Delta pumping plants. The environmental/fishery and water quality protections are provided generally through three Federal statutes. 

(1) Endangered Species Act; 

(a) Winter Run Salmon 

(b) Delta Smelt 

(2) CVPIA 

(a) Dedication of 800,000 acre feet (af) of CVP yield for environmental purposes; and 

(3) Clean Water Act 

(a) 1995 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay–Delta. 


88057.006
31

As a result of these regulations and standards the opportunities to move water 

through the delta have decreased significantly. It is primarily for this reason that 

south-of–Delta CVP M&I and ag service contractors have chronic shortages. Indeed, 

shortages are imposed on south-of-delta ag service contractors in wet years, when 

water north of the Delta is abundant. 

The Federal and state regulatory statutes provide broad discretion that allows the 

regulations to be implemented in a balanced and efficient manner. This discretion 

should include taking into consideration water supply objectives as well as meeting 

their environmental/fishery and water quality mandates. 

Regulations, Good Science and the Calfed Science Program 

In the last few years, the Calfed Science program has engaged in the effort to develop better science. We have great hopes for the success of the Program in this regard. 

Better science could be the basis for a new generation of environmental requirements, ones that are more flexible, ones based more on real time conditions, and 

ones allowing tradeoffs that are good for both fish and water supply. It is not hard 

to conceive of requirements that, while providing more fish, also increase water supplies by an amount comparable to the construction of new reservoirs, simply by freeing up the conveyance capacity we already have. 

Of course, the trick is not just to develop better science, but to incorporate that 

science into better environmental requirements. It is not evident that this connection has yet been well established. Therefore, we look forward to an enhanced role 

for the Calfed Science Program in this area, namely, helping to ensure that better 

science results in better requirements. 

The new generation of environmental requirements should be framed by the same 

principles that apply to agricultural and urban supplies. All over the state, agricultural and urban water users are making great strides to improve their water use 

efficiency. They have considered new alternatives for matching supplies and needs. 

The results are impressive, and promise to be more so in the future. Now, it is time 

to apply the same principles of efficiency and broad alternatives to the use of environmental water. 

You do that by paying more attention to the science. What really works? What 

uses of water produce higher benefits and what uses do not? Where are we uncertain and where are we sure? Can we take a broader view of the problem? Are there 

alternatives that we haven’t considered? What are they and can we substitute them 

for things that don’t work well or cost too much? 

These are the questions we want the Calfed Science Program to address. In other 

words, we want the Calfed Science Program to supply the information that will 

allow transition to a new generation of requirements. We also want the Calfed 

Science Program to figure out how to ensure the timely use of this information. 

COORDINATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CVP / SWP 

Coordinated Operations Agreement 

In 1986 Congress approved an agreement between the United States of America 

and the State of California for the Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley 

Project and the State Water Project (COA). This agreement established in part the 

relationship between the operations of the two projects and provided under what circumstances the two projects could pump and how the two projects would share responsibility for meeting the then existing water, quality and fishery standards. 

Since 1986 much has changed. Fishery protection under the Endangered Species 

Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and water quality standards have 

significantly affected how the two projects operate. Conforming Project operations 

to these new conditions has been an ongoing challenge. To the credit of the state 

and Federal project administrators, they have been fairly successful at working 

through circumstances as they develop, but the COA is outdated. The COA no 

longer provides clear guidelines to govern the relationship of the two projects or how 

burdens of operational constraints imposed to protect water quality and fishery resources will be shared. 

Joint Point of Diversion: 

An important component of conveyance in the Calfed ROD is the Joint Point of 

Diversion (Joint Point). Joint Point provides opportunities for CVP to utilize SWP 

Banks capacity, under certain conditions, for the wheeling of CVP water. At the 

time of the development of the ROD CVP contractors were advised that Joint Point 

opportunities would average around 184,000 af/year. Given the capacity at CVP 

Tracy Pumping Plant and the restrictions placed on pumping, this was an important 

component of the ROD for CVP contractors. 

32

As a result of many different factors including increased demand by SWP contractors south of the delta and the potential need by southern California SWP contractors for transfers of northern California water to replace lost Colorado River water, 

Joint Point status is uncertain at best, and nonexistent in some years. Certainly not 

the 184,000 af anticipated in the ROD. 

The dilemma is that the Calfed ROD created conflicting expectations for both 

SWP contractors and CVP contractors. 

Dual Delta Conveyance 

One alternative for improving the conveyance of water from north of the Delta 

to south of the Delta that was rejected by the Calfed ROD is dual Delta conveyance, 

which would include an isolated diversion facility on the Sacramento River to convey water around the Delta. The ROD rejected this alternative as infeasible due to 

social and technical considerations based, in part, on the expectation that other alternatives ‘‘ha[d] a high likelihood of success in a shorter time period.’’ Calfed ROD 

at 27. The failure of these other alternatives to provide the expected improvement 

in conveyance has lead some south-of-the-delta water users to question whether the 

feasibility of the dual Delta conveyance alternative should be reexamined. 

Coordination and Cooperation Opportunities: 

Despite these conflicting expectations, there are opportunities for mutual benefits 

to both projects when taking a comprehensive approach at coordinating operations. 

Some have pointed to CVP storage and SWP conveyance as an opportunity for sharing those benefits both projects. This sharing could be the basis of a compromise. 

Better coordination of demands has also been identified as an area of project operations that could improve supplies for all south-of–Delta users. 

CVP/SWP Coordination and Cooperation Summary: 

Better coordination and cooperation between the projects is needed and is achievable, and improved coordination and cooperation is essential to implementing a balanced Calfed program. The Authority and its members are committed to working 

with the appropriate Federal and state agencies as well as the SWP contractors to 

accomplish this objective. 

REFUGE SUPPLY DIVERSIFICATION 

The CVPIA fundamentally changed the way the CVP operates and the allocation 

of CVP water. Among other things, CVPIA rededicated well over 1 million af of CVP 

water from historical uses to environmental purposes each year. CVP water was rededicated primarily through three provisions: 

(1) Section 3406 b(2), dedication of 800,000 af of CVP yield for environmental/fishery purposes; 

(2) Restoration of the Trinity River; and 

(3) Dedication of over 400,000 af of CVP water for wildlife refuges. 

The CVPIA also provided direction and authority for mitigation / minimizing impacts to water users as a result of the legislation. Examples of mitigation measures 

include: 

(1) CVPIA, Section 3408j. A provision that calls for the Secretary of Interior to 

develop a plan to increase the yield of the CVP by the amount dedicated to 

fish and wildlife purposes; and 

(2) CVPIA, Section 3406 d(1). A provision that calls for the replacement of water 

dedicated for Level 2 refuge supplies. Specifically the provision states: In implementing this paragraph, the Secretary shall endeavor to diversify sources 

of supply in order to minimize possible adverse effects upon Central Valley 

Project Contractors. 

(3) CVPIA, Section 3406 d(5) further provides that: The Secretary is authorized 

and directed to construct or to acquire from non–Federal entities such water 

conveyance facilities, conveyance capacity, and wells as are necessary to implement the requirements of this subsection. 

Alternative supplies for refuges are directed and authorized in the CVPIA and the 

ROD commits Calfed Agencies to working on a plan for alternative refuge supplies 

and conveyance. This is an important component of Calfed for CVP contractors and 

should be implemented immediately. 

CONCLUSION 

• Conveyance of water from north of the Sacramento / San Joaquin River Delta 

to south of the Delta is a key component to the Calfed Program. Two thirds of 

the state’s population and a significant portion of the state’s agriculture rely on 

this conveyance through the delta. 

33

• A conveyance plan must include protections for in-delta water users, water 

quality, environmental/fishery uses, and northern California uses. 

• The two key factors controlling conveyance opportunities are the pumping plant 

capacities and regulations governing the operations of the facilities. 

• Short-term capacity issues can be addressed by: 

(1) increasing the SWP Banks Pumping Plant permits to 8,500 cfs; 

(2) constructing the Intertie between the CVP DMC and the State Aqueduct; 

and 

(3) finalizing and implementing a plan to address the San Luis Reservoir Low 

Point issues. 

• Regulations at the pumping plants significantly restrict conveyance opportunities. Through the Calfed Science Program, these regulations need to be reviewed to assure that we are efficiently meeting our environmental/fishery objectives and that good science is being developed and used in the review process. 

• Cooperation and coordination between the Federal and state water projects is 

essential to implementing a balanced successful Calfed Program. We are optimistic that there are opportunities through comprehensive coordination of operations and sharing of facilities that would benefit both projects, assure that all 

water users are benefiting in a balanced manner, and avoid major conflicts between the projects. 

• CVPIA provides for the diversification of water dedicated to for Level 2 refuge 

supplies. This is noted in the Calfed ROD and is an important component for 

CVP south of delta contractors. Appropriate resources should be dedicated to 

implement. 

Thank you again, for the Committee’s ongoing efforts to address these issues and 

for the opportunity to submit this testimony.

Mr. CALVERT. I would point out to the audience that this is an 

official congressional hearing. Any acknowledgments either positive 

or negative are not allowed. We appreciate your cooperation. 

With that, Mr. Marc Christopher, Friends of the River. 

STATEMENT OF MARC E. CHRISTOPHER, POLICY ADVOCATE,

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 

name is Marc Christopher, and I represent Friends of the River. 

Friends of the River, for those of you who don’t know, it is a stateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY

88057.007
34

wide river conservation organization committed to maintaining and 

restoring California’s free flowing rivers. 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk here today about an issue 

that affects every living thing, humans and everything in 

California, and that is clean, reliable water. 

Certainly, in the upcoming years, the CALFED program will 

force both state and Federal decisionmakers to make value judgments about water that will affect the health of our citizens, the 

economy, and the environment. 

I submit that the success of the CALFED program could not be 

judged by short-term successes, but must be viewed as a commitment to long-term sustainability. Sustainability not gauged in 

months and years, but measured in decades and generations. 

I have been asked here today to present the environmentalist’s 

perspective on CALFED, and I realize that probably it is not going 

to be very popular, but it is a voice that needs to be heard, and 

it is a voice shared by a lot of other Californians. 

To create sustainable solutions, one must accurately understand 

the current environmental problems we face. For modern 

California, is largely a history of dam building. These dams and 

water diversions have produced a robust agricultural economy and 

a vibrant manufacturing arena where, because of arid conditions, 

none could have existed before. These are good things. 

But for this success, our environment and the thousands of 

Californians that rely on it for their livelihood and their recreation 

have paid a heavy toll. Sixty percent of our native fishes are listed 

as endangered, threatened or on the decline, and 40 to 60 percent 

of the historical flows through the Delta are diverted. Water quality in the San Joaquin Delta is well below Federal and state standards and is among the poorest in the nation. Undammed rivers in 

California are so few that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers them to be an endangered ecosystem. The problems we face 

are real and substantial. 

Recognizing the importance of the Delta in a society that uses 

water in competing ways that nature provides us, only a finite 

amount of water, the CALFED program has invested a tremendous 

amount of time, money, and energy to provide a framework for solutions. 

The Record of Decision is a comprehensive plan that, if implemented as a whole, will work to improve the health of the BayDelta estuary. Now, I certainly do not feel comfortable with everything that is in the document; however, it gives a framework from 

which to work and resolve the conflicts that have been inhibiting 

us in the past. 

Billions have been spent in the last century on water development in California. And I would add that in comparison, CALFED’s 

Program investment in restoration is relatively modest. It will take 

time to realize a quantifiable return on this investment. 

Presently, we are just starting to see some minor improvements 

in fish populations and water quality. We are encouraged by that. 

But the ‘‘Program balance,’’ so often referred to when discussing 

CALFED, cannot be quantified in terms of dollars spent but 

through sustainable success. 

35

The CALFED Record of Decision cannot be a document of tradeoffs. We must resist the ‘‘If you get this, we are entitled to that’’ 

mentality, because if we forgo real, sustainable improvements, the 

CALFED Program becomes a zero-sum game, and we have done 

our state and nation a grand disservice. 

Specifically, I have asked by the Subcommittee Chair to address 

the South Delta Improvement Plan, which centers around the issue 

of increasing pump capacity at Banks Pumping Plant by as much 

as 60 percent. 

The South Delta Improvement Plan was envisioned to provide 

water for fish habitat, conveyance, and restoring water quality. 

And if used properly, the plan could greatly benefit the environment while providing increased water supply reliability; however, 

if increased pumping capacity is used to divert excess water from 

the Delta and increases the amount of water exported south while 

requiring, at the same time, the public to pay for mitigation measures, the plan could undo environmental and water quality 

progress we have already made. 

For a number of reasons, we are somewhat skeptical of the plan. 

The CALFED Record of Decision sets forth no operating criteria 

and no definite studies that demonstrate that its operation can or 

will reduce the impact on sensitive fish species. The skepticism is 

further fueled by water baseline assurances envisioned by the ROD 

that are being undercut. And we have failed to investigate other 

ways of meeting the goals of the South Delta Improvement Plan 

without actually increasing pumping capacity. 

Beyond the CALFED Program, we must challenge the mind-set 

that has led us to this predicament. Every action we take will have 

consequences down the road. But there is reason for us to be optimistic on all sides. 

We are encouraged by the Bush administration’s shift to focusing 

on constructing large dams and water diversions. Just last month, 

Interior Secretary Gale Norton in her Water 2025, ‘‘Vision for Resolving Water Conflict in the West’’ called for Federal funding to 

be focused on technology for increasing ‘‘conservation and desalination.’’ Recognizing their huge economic and environmental price 

tag, nowhere did the 2025 Plan call for the construction of more 

dams. 

We are also encouraged by the tremendous success many urban 

areas in the area of water conservation has worked. Their efforts 

at becoming more waterwise have led to some amazing results. For 

instance, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 

serving nearly 18 million people put forth its blueprint for water 

supply reliability over the next 20 years. It is calling for 50 percent 

of its water supply needs to be met through conservation, recycling, 

ground water storage, and local resources. 

This is an amazing thing. In the realm of desalination, programs 

that have been proposed, or in the works, or currently operating 

are estimated to produce 600,000 to 800,000 acre feet of water in 

Los Angeles, a city that in the last 10 years has grown by 1 million 

people, they use no more water. 

On the agriculture front, the practice that has proven successful 

in Australia, a study at the University California, Davis, is known 

as ‘‘regulated deficit irrigation’’ where water reduction at specific 

36

stages in crop development increases the quality in the product in 

profit for the farmer, and if utilized it could be 1.5 million acre feet 

of water in California in a year. Then in perspective, the city of Los 

Angeles uses about 800,000 acre feet of water. 

In conclusion, we face many important decisions. We are blessed 

to have a beautiful and vibrant economy and environment. It tells 

a story about who we are as a society. It is part of our national 

heritage as Americans. Let’s embrace that. Let’s embrace long-term 

sustainability. Tough decisions will have to be made, but the best 

solutions are those which help America and California create longterm sustainability. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christopher follows:]

Statement of Marc E. Christopher, Policy Advocate,

Friends of the River 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the invitation to submit comments on the important matter of protecting the water quality and ensuing a high quality of life for all Californians. My 

name is Marc Christopher and I am a policy advocate for Friends of the River, a 

statewide river conservation organization. Friends of the River has 5,000 members 

dedicated to the protection and restoration of California’s free flowing rivers, 

streams and watersheds. 

In the upcoming years, the CALFED Program will force both state and Federal 

decision makers to make value judgments about water that will affect the health 

of our citizens, economy and environment. I submit that the success of the CALFED 

Program cannot be judged in the short-term successes, but must be viewed as a 

commitment to long-term sustainability. Sustainability is not gauged in months and 

years, but is measured in decades and generations. 

To create sustainable solutions, one must accurately understand the current problems that have arisen from a society that relies on water is varied, and sometimes 

competing ways. The history of modern California is largely a history of dam building. These dams and massive water diversions have produced a robust agricultural 

economy and a vibrant manufacturing arena where, because of arid conditions, none 

could have existed. But, for this success, our environment and the thousands of 

Californians that rely on it for their livelihood and recreation, have paid a heavy 

toll. Sixty percent of our native fishes are listed as endangered, threatened or on 

the decline, and 40–60% of historical flows through the Delta are diverted. Water 

quality in the San Joaquin Delta, well-below Federal and state standards, is among 

the poorest in the nation. Undammed rives in California are so few that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service considers them to be an endangered ecosystem. The problems we face are not only real, but substantial. 

Recognizing that the Delta supplies water to two-thirds of all Californians, drives 

the agricultural economy and supports one of the most unique and diverse estuaries 

in the world—the CALFED Program has invested a tremendous amount of time, 

money and energy to provide a framework for solutions. The Record of Decision is 

a comprehensive plan that, if implemented as a whole, will work to improve the 

health of the Bay–Delta estuary. When sustainable improvements are recognized, 

certain traditional methods of increasing water supply will be explored, subject to 

environmental sustainability. 

Billions have been spent on water development in California. In comparison the 

CALFED Program’s investment in restoration has been relatively modest, and it 

will take time to realize a quantifiable return on that investment. Presently, we are 

just starting to see some minor improvements in fish populations and water quality 

and there is already a cry for large expensive, government subsidized water projects 

that would likely negate any environmental improvements and cost taxpayers billions of hard-earned dollars. ‘‘Program balance,’’ so often referred to when discussing 

the CALFED Program, cannot be quantified in terms of dollars spent—but through 

sustainable successes. The CALFED ROD cannot be viewed as a document of tradeoffs. We must resist the ‘‘if you get this we are entitled to that’’ mentality. For if 

we forgo real, sustainable improvements, the CALFED Program becomes a zero-sum 

game and we have done our state and nation a grand disservice. 

Specifically, I have been asked by the Sub–Committee Chair to address the South 

Delta Improvement Program, which centers around the issue of increasing the 

pumping capacity at Banks Pumping Plant by as much as 60% of its current alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
37

lowed capacity and dredging significant portions of the river delta. I have also been 

asked to comment on the status of the San Joaquin River restoration efforts. 

The South Delta Improvement Program was envisioned to provide water for fish 

habitat and restore water quality, not to provide for ‘‘surplus’’ water. If used properly, the Plan could greatly benefit the environment while providing increased water 

quality. However, if increased pumping capacity is used to divert more water from 

the Delta and increases the amount of water exported south while requiring the 

public to pay for environmental mitigation measures—the Plan could undue the environmental and water quality progress we have made. 

For a number of reasons, we remain skeptical that the original articulated goals 

of the South Delta Improvement Plan will be realized. The CALFED ROD sets forth 

no operating criteria and no definitive studies demonstrate that its operation can 

or will reduce the impact on sensitive fish species. The skepticism is further fueled 

by the fact that the water quality baseline assurances envisioned by the ROD are 

being undercut. And, we have failed to investigate other ways of meeting the goals 

of the South Delta Improvement Program without actually increasing pumping capacity. 

With regard to the San Joaquin River restoration settlement, at your hearing in 

Elk Grove a settlement negotiations representative will be available to answer some 

of the more direct questions you posed. However, many of the issues being debated 

are straightforward. Prior to the construction of the Friant Dam, the San Joaquin 

River supported the southern most run of Chinook salmon. Because the Dam does 

not release water for the environment, certain parts of the river dry up, or are completely overrun with pollution runoff. And, like the salmon, many of the fishermen 

that relied on the river for their livelihood disappeared or greatly suffered. After 15 

years of court battles and negotiations, Friant water users have rejected the Federal 

mediators final compromise settlement. This is unfortunate as comprehensive studies conducted by Friant and the environmental coalition over the past four years 

demonstrate that a living river can be restored while preserving a strong and 

healthy agricultural economy. If the settlement negotiations accomplished anything, 

they demonstrated that there are dozens of water management measures that can 

be employed to benefit both farmers and the environment. We hope negotiations can 

resume, but unless there is some willingness by Friant to compromise it would be 

unrealistic to expect a settlement that can produce lasting benefit for what is left 

of the San Joaquin River. 

Beyond the CALFED Program and the San Joaquin River Restoration, we must 

challenge the mindset that has led us into this water predicament. Every dam we 

build, is a dam that will at some point in the future be filled with sediment and 

outlive its usefulness. Every drop more of water we continue to take from the Delta 

takes us a step closer to the collapse of a vibrant estuary, and the loss of a way 

of life for millions of Californians. Instead we must focus our resources on sustainable solutions. We need to clean up our groundwater and set up a system whereby 

it can be utilized efficiently (California remains one of the last states that has failed 

to comprehensively regulate groundwater). We continue to see great strides being 

made in conservation and wastewater recycling. 

We are encouraged by the Bush Administration’s apparent shift away from focusing on constructing expensive dams and diversions. Just last month Interior Secretary Gale Norton in her Water 2025: Vision for Resolving Water Conflict in the 

West called for Federal funding to be focused on technology for increasing ‘‘conservation and desalination.’’ Recognizing their huge economic and environmental price 

tag, nowhere did the 2025 Plan call for the construction of more dams. 

We are also encouraged by the tremendous success of many urban areas in the 

area of water conservation and reclamation. Their efforts at becoming more water 

wise have lead to some amazing results. For instance, in March, the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California, serving nearly 18 million people, put forth its 

blueprint for water supply reliability over the next 20 years. MWD plans to meet 

over 50% of its supply needs through water conservation, recycling, groundwater 

storage, and local resources. 

We are slowly recognizing that one can no longer credibly pit environmental responsibility as an enemy of economic sustainability: that is if we want to measure 

economic success by quality of life and quality of jobs. Short-term economic gain at 

the expense of the environment means borrowing against the future. In California, 

cheap mining practices provided an easy way to extract precious minerals and produced large numbers of jobs and profits. A century later fish, birds and even humans continue to experience serious health problems due to mercury contamination 

and society continues to spend millions of dollars on trying to eliminate the problem. 

In the past half-century societies and nations that have failed to invest in conservation of water have paid dearly. Extensive studies document how the constant extracVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
38

tion of 40–60% of historic outflows from European and Asian rivers estuaries, not 

unlike the what is happening here in California, have forever destroyed the most 

vibrant and plentiful estuaries in the world, including the Caspian, Aral and Black 

Seas. And with the loss of these resources are the loss of jobs, food and a way of 

life. (See Rozengurt, M.A. 2002 ‘‘The Agonizing San Francisco Bay Ecosystem,’’ Hydrology Days. Ed. Jorge A. Ramirez, Fort Collins Co. pp. 245–257). 

In conclusion, we face many important decisions. When it comes to the most basic 

needs of society, will we elect to sustain one man’s quality of life by degrading another man’s quality of life, will we sacrifice the quality of life of the man who uses 

the fishing line to feed his family to protect the man who relies on the plow, or will 

we choose to find sustainable solutions that will help the most Americans for the 

longest possible period? 

In order to create long-term sustainability, tough decisions will need to be made, 

some will be asked to sacrifice, so that society may benefit. The best solutions are 

those which help America create long-term sustainability. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Thomas Clark, General Manager of Kern 

County Water Agency. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS CLARK, GENERAL MANAGER,

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both Mr. Chairman, the 

big Chairman, and the slightly smaller Chairman. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to address you. I am the general manager of the Kern County Water Agency, the great county 

just to the south. I bring a welcome from our Congressman Bill 

Thomas, who has also been supportive in this process. I am also 

the president of State Water Contractors, statewide organization of 

27 state water contractors, including Metropolitan Water District, 

so on behalf of Metropolitan, we welcome you. Welcome to the Central Valley. 

I am going to try to be brief, and touch on just a few important 

issues. I brought with me a very high-tech chart here to my left 

and to your right. To balance out Dan’s chart to the right, the 

hourglass approach is—what I have tried to do is show you what 

I call ‘‘The Window Approach.’’. 

One thing—first thing I would really like to say—I will jump 

around a little bit here—first of all, Temperance—Congressman 

Nunes, Kern County is in support of Temperance. It is something 

we would like to see move ahead. Through our Congressman Thomas, we support the legislation, and we would like to see things happen. 

Also, with respect to Congressman Pombo, I think one of the 

things that—while we are talking about these pumping plants or 

that type of thing, one thing we need to make sure that we do is 

protect the Delta. 

There has been a partnership between the projects on the Delta 

from the beginning. And this program that we keep talking on 

Banks Pumping Plant to improve pumping at Banks is kind of a 

partnership with the south Delta entrance. Alex Hildebrand who 

today is about 140 years old and has been working on this issue 

for many, many years—South Delta is equally important to the 

south Delta entrance, because with the temporary barriers and 

what we hope will be accelerated permanent barriers, it allows 

pumping in the south Delta to continue. It protects water levels 

and water quality. 

39

So while we talk about increasing pumping at Banks, we are also 

talking about protections to the south Delta. It is a very important 

piece. But if you look at this pumping window, I think the important thing to remember is that between Tracy and Banks—Tracy 

and Banks, if this pumping window was completely wide open 

without limitation, we can meet all the needs, all the existing 

needs, all the future needs for water supplies from the Delta. But 

after Tracy was constructed, then the Banks Pumping Plant—there 

are also pumping windows that close. 

And the first and foremost at the top of the chart is Number 

D1641. That is the State Water Resources Control Board. They 

have the responsibility to balance between exports from the Delta, 

in Delta uses to protect agriculture in the Delta, and water quality 

for fish and long life, so forth and so on. That is a balance that we 

all live with and we must respect. 

However, notwithstanding those protections, through the 

CALFED and the early phases of CALFED, some of the powers 

that be felt that, ‘‘Well, that is really not good enough. We have 

got to provide increased protections.’’ So when you see these pumping windows close, to provide that level of protections, we have got 

to provide increased protection. 

So when you see these pumping windows close for E purposes 

and then CVPIA, which you hear from Dan, these are additional 

reductions of pumping that have been imposed over and above. 

Now, those were imposed, we believe, without sound science. 

Now part and parcel of CALFED is to develop that science and test 

the system. 

The past person that I dealt with on the other side of the table, 

Mr. Mike Spear, who is now my leader on the state water project, 

my new director—which I am sure he will advocate strongly for our 

program for increased exports. These impositions of limitations on 

pumping, he acknowledged and others in the fishery role will acknowledge that they are to be tested and adjusted over time, based 

upon science. 

The early science today—there was a science symposium at 

CALFED that shows the linkage between pumping and mortality 

in fish is weak. It is not strong science. And one of the things that 

I think that you can help us with, is a decisionmaking process imposed CALFED, which takes the science and translates it into operational changes. So if the science doesn’t support reductions of 

pumping, then translate that into an operational change so that we 

can then increase these windows. 

Because really what we are talking about right now in going to 

8,500 at Banks is opening these pumping windows so water supplies can be managed south of the Delta. Now, the management of 

supplies south of the Delta is not just important to Kern County. 

It is not just important to Dan Nelson’s group on the west side. It 

is also important on the east side. 

Today there is water that is exchanged through Kern County 

that moves up into the east side of the Valley. We are looking at 

improvements on our facilities in the South Valley, so we can move 

water into the eastern part of the Valley, and improve everybody’s 

life down here. 

40

I think what I would like to leave you with is balance. I think 

this whole idea of CALFED was founded on balance. The early actions in CALFED have been environmental programs, and we have 

funded tens of millions of dollars in environmental programs. I 

take issue with our friends in the environmental community. We 

are now having people like the Sierra Club that are opposing water 

supply solutions; i.e., the Banks Pumping. 

This is all part of a package. So it isn’t that the environmental 

improvements can be made on the front end, and now that it is 

time to make water supply water quality improvements that there 

be opposition. It is a packaged program. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, both you and Chairman Pombo. 

Thank you for letting us be here today. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]

Statement of Thomas N. Clark, General Manager,

Kern County Water Agency 

INTRODUCTION 

My name is Thomas N. Clark. I am the General Manager of the Kern County 

Water Agency, President of the State Water Contractors, Inc. (an organization of 27 

public agencies which contract for water from the California State Water Project), 

and a member of the Bay Delta Advisory Committee. Other aspects of my experience and background are set forth in attached Exhibit A which is incorporated by 

reference. 

The Kern County Water Agency is the largest agricultural water agency, and the 

second largest municipal water supplier on the State Water Project. The Agency 

provides irrigation water to districts serving almost one million acres of the most 

productive farmland in the world, and provides municipal water to districts serving 

about 300,000 residents of western Kern County. The districts and agencies comprising the State Water Contractors serve over 22 million Californians and well over 

a million acres of farmland. 

We strive to look for ‘‘win-win’’ solutions to our water problems—solutions that 

benefit all stakeholders. CalFed held out that promise at its inception. It has had 

some successes, but it needs improvement to enable it to fulfill its promise. Enhancements in the communication and utilization of the knowledge and agreements 

developed through CalFed are necessary for continued success. 

In our view, the ability to use up to 8500 cubic feet per second (‘‘cfs’’) of existing 

capacity at the State Water Project’s (‘‘SWP’’) Banks pumping plant (‘‘Banks’’) in the 

immediate future, with corresponding protections and improvements for South Delta 

water users, is a crucial test of CalFed’s ability to fulfill its promise and its ability 

to survive. As the Chairman has said, we must ‘‘face the reality of moving water 

south’’ as a necessary element of CalFed. That reality has been compared to an 

hourglass with an excess of water above the chokepoint and an excess of demand 

below it. With appropriate protections for water users in the south Delta, that 

chokepoint can be loosened to make rapid improvement in our water supply situation and to provide benefits for all stakeholders. The Chairman has identified the 

critical elements: improving conveyance, streamlining environmental regulations, 

and enhancing below-ground and above-ground storage. This will improve yield and, 

coupled with recycling, desalination, and streamlined water transfers, enhance 

California’s overall water supply picture. Through it all, it is important to protect 

the property rights of water users and to encourage mutually beneficial solutions 

that engage all responsible stakeholders. 

IMPROVEMENTS IN CONVEYANCE 

The clearest case for improvements in conveyance is at the SWP Banks pumping 

plant in the south Delta. Improvements in storage have limited usefulness for two 

thirds of California’s population and millions of acres of productive farmland unless 

that water can be moved through Banks. A key feature of the ‘‘soft path’’ alternative 

that was selected by CalFed is enhancement of the approved capacity at Banks. 

That capacity is currently artificially limited to 6,680 cfs by permit limitations administered by the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The CalFed through–Delta conveyance alternative we are attempting to 

41

implement was intended to be a package including ecosystem improvements and 

conveyance improvements along with other elements, including storage, with approval of 8,500 cfs pumping at Banks this month. That significant improvement in 

California’s water supply can be achieved quickly with minor improvements to protect South Delta water users and Contra Costa Water District. Over 320 ecosystem 

projects have been implemented as part of the CalFed package as mitigation. Implementation of 8500 cfs at Banks also benefits water users north of the Delta by 

improving the ability to move water in wet years and providing funding that can 

help stabilize the agricultural economy north of the Delta. 

Delays of Banks Pumping Plant Enhancements 

The delays in the implementation of 8500 cfs pumping capacity at Banks are indicative of a broader problem in CalFed: the regulatory agencies which comprise it 

are not utilizing the scientific and policy benefits that were the hallmark of CalFed. 

After thousands of hours of negotiation and public hearings, the CalFed agencies 

embarked upon the current alternative for improvements of the system: a balance 

of ecosystem, water supply, and water quality improvements involving minimal construction and no isolated conveyance around the Delta. Yet the CalFed agencies 

have fallen one year behind in approving a simple change in permitting while they 

re-examine issues that have already received exhaustive study. 

Prioritize Banks Enhancements and Improvements for South Delta Water Users 

To achieve balance, CalFed must prioritize the enhancements at Banks until 8500 

cfs at Banks has been approved and progress toward restoring a balanced implementation is made. Physical improvements to protect the south Delta water users 

including dredging of channels, extension of South Delta user intake pumps and 

permanent operable barriers to prevent any harm to South Delta users should also 

proceed at a quicker pace. The improvements to protect other Delta water users 

should also proceed immediately including relocation of Contra Costa intakes, operational improvements, and progress on expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Implementation of 8500 cfs at Banks will also maximize the utility of new storage space 

north of the Delta and facilitate funding of new storage as mutually beneficial uses 

are explored. 

Joint Point of Diversion Should Implemented 

Another significant improvement in conveyance, which can be done relatively rapidly, is implementation of the joint point of diversion (‘‘Joint Point of Diversion’’ or 

‘‘JPOD’’). Use of the JPOD is currently limited by fishery restrictions that were part 

of a pre–Environmental Water Account agreement. Now that the ERWA is in place 

and functioning, those restrictions should be lifted to allow greater water supply 

benefit from the JPOD. The JPOD holds promise of improved cooperation between 

the State Water Project and Central Valley Project (‘‘CVP’’) as the proper implementation of mutual use of SWP conveyance capacity and CVP storage capacity is explored. The SWP has been a project where conveyance capacity utility has been 

hampered by inadequate storage north of the Delta. Similarly, CVP north of Delta 

storage utility has been hampered by inadequate conveyance capacity to south of 

Delta users. While capacity at Banks excess to the needs of SWP contractors can 

be made available, real potential exists for mutually agreed programs to trade CVP 

use of capacity at Banks for SWP use of CVP storage. Congressional authorizations 

to allow the CVP to enter into mutually agreeable programs to explore synergies 

between the two projects would be helpful. 

IMPROVEMENTS IN SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE 

There has been significant emphasis in prior hearings on surface storage. Development of additional surface storage is clearly needed and it should be developed 

without harming existing users. The development of surface storage takes significant time, however. Currently pre-feasibility and feasibility studies are proceeding 

and their progress should be closely monitored and encouraged. Time is of the essence as California seeks to avoid catastrophic effects when the next drought occurs. 

We cannot afford to wait while this work progresses, however; we must pursue development of additional underground storage in suitable aquifers so that precious 

water lost in wet years is minimized. 

Our Agency has been a leader in the development of underground storage utilizing existing vacant space in aquifers. This space, created by overdraft in prior 

decades, constitutes a valuable resource that is available to local agencies for storage of flows in wet years. That stored water can later be extracted, with appropriate 

protections for overlying users, for use during critically dry years. While it is a tremendous asset, it does have constraints that must be recognized. First, overlying 

users must be protected by appropriate protections tailored to the local site to preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
42

vent inadvertent exacerbation of overdraft and localized problems during the extraction phase. In Kern, these protections were only achieved through long, hard, negotiations between potential bankers and overlying users. Local control of the process 

also facilitates continuous monitoring to respond quickly to any problems that develop. Second, the nature of the underground storage or ‘‘water banking’’ makes extraction capacity critical. The ability to appropriately coordinate extraction with surface water supplies can greatly enhance flexibility and reduce extraction cost. 

Improvements mean not only the development of new pumping capacity, but also 

the enhancement of conveyance to facilitate exchanges with surface water supplies. 

REGULATORY STREAMLINING 

Improvement of Science 

CalFed has significantly improved the scientific processes for developing knowledge about the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Through CalFed knowledge of the 

effects of actions taken in and outside the Delta has been improved. The facilitation 

of peer review of questionable theories has proven especially beneficial. Yet, the improving science has not been readily accepted by some regulatory agencies and very 

little of the new science has been used to modify and improve existing regulatory 

restrictions 

Failure of Effective Communications to Regulatory Agencies 

The usefulness of this improved scientific knowledge is directly related to its dispersion and utilization by the regulatory agencies that govern the Delta, largely 

through their control of regulation under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The 

quasi-religious myth linking water usage to hypothesized declines of Delta species 

continues to persist in some regulatory circles. The reality is that the decline and 

recovery of species in the Delta is governed by many other factors. Ecosystem improvements have had significant successes in the recovery of species populations. 

Species in the Delta undergo natural variation in population size dependent upon 

a host of natural conditions. As the science of the Delta improves our understanding 

of these complex systems, regulatory agencies tend to be slow to accept the new scientific understanding and slower to apply it to their regulations. 

Case in Point: Persistent Attempts to List Splittail 

A case in point is the continuing attempt by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to list the Sacramento Splittail under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Most scientists, including those at the California Department of Fish and Game, do not believe the Splittail should be listed. In fact, the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California found that the previous listing of the species was arbitrary and capricious and ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider. That 

reconsideration has been ongoing for years while Fish and Wildlife Service staff 

scrambles to find a scientifically valid theory justifying listing—no such theory exists in my opinion and the opinion of many others including the California Department of Fish and Game. 

TRANSFERS AND WATER BANKING 

Water Transfers as Tools for Efficient Water Management 

Our Agency has found temporary water transfers to be useful tools in the efficient 

management of water. Transfers help avoid significant pumping costs by reducing 

power usage and demand for pumping capacity. They can move water to areas in 

temporary need of water for return to the transferring area when it needs water. 

They can help match storage capacity with conveyance capacity. The combination 

of these uses can create tremendous flexibility in water management when they are 

not restrained by unnecessary red tape. Full utilization of these temporary water 

transfers demands flexibility and prompt action, however. Facilitation of the environmental reviews and approvals of such actions can yield tremendous gains. 

Long term and permanent transfers pose more significant issues. In particular, 

the impacts on local economies of water transfers, which may be essential for jobs 

and economic stability in the transferring communities, must be carefully considered 

and appropriate mitigation provided where impacts are found. In the long run however, rural communities must not be sacrificed for the benefit of others. Long term 

success in CalFed is only assured by enhancing the water supply for all. 

Water Transfers Do Not Increase Overall Water Supply Automatically 

Water transfers can do many things, but they do not increase storage capacity by 

themselves. They do not increase conveyance capacity by themselves. They can facilitate mutually beneficial agreements between areas of the State to provide for increased storage and conveyance that will improve our water supply. For example, 

43

we have a number of programs with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California (‘‘Met’’) in which Met water is transferred to Kern for storage in wet 

years for return to Met in dry years. These programs have involved utilizing the 

economic vitality of Southern California to fund improvements in our storage and 

conveyance capacity as part of the consideration offered by Met. Thus Met increases 

its dry year supply by transferring water to Kern in wet years and financing storage 

and conveyance improvements in Kern which provide benefits to all involved. 

Increased Capacity at Banks as Critical 

These programs, however, require moving water in wet years. The water is primarily available in the Delta. The challenge is moving the water to storage and use 

south of the Delta. Banks pumping plant is key to that on the SWP. Cooperative 

use of Banks, or potential enlargement of the CVP Tracy pumping plant and Delta–

Mendota canal are the key to the CVP. 

CONCLUSION 

At its outset CalFed held out the promise of mutually beneficial improvements in 

the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta system as a mechanism for improving the ecosystems of the Delta, water supply and water quality. Many ecosystem improvements have resulted in the Delta and our scientific understanding of the Delta has 

improved, but these improvements have not been effectively communicated within 

the Federal and state regulatory agencies delaying scheduled enhancements and improvements to water supply and Delta water quality. The ability of CalFed to effectively deliver on simple permitting of 8500 cfs capacity at Banks pumping plant and 

the South Delta improvements to protect Delta users for the eventual increase to 

10,300 cfs is a clear test of the viability of CalFed and its ability to deliver on the 

mutually beneficial plan promised. The linkages between ecosystem improvements 

delivered thus far and the scheduled water supply and quality improvements must 

be effectively communicated to regulatory agencies along with the supporting 

science. 

Failure of CalFed to deliver these benefits would deliver a death blow to the process. Failure to recognize the linkages and deliver permitting in timely fashion would 

disregard the fact that improvements at Banks Pumping Plant (with appropriate 

Delta protections), and mutually beneficial agreements for the coordination of capacity and storage, hold the most immediate promise for improvement in California’s 

water crisis. It would also be a harbinger of the inability to achieve the longer term 

creation of needed storage capacity. CalFed must improve its ability to communicate 

its policy and science successes to the regulatory agencies that participate in it. Absent that improvement, stakeholders will be forced to pursue their objectives outside 

its framework. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next is Mr. Keith Watkins, the Second Vice 

President of the Tulare County Farm Bureau. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH WATKINS, 2ND VICE PRESIDENT,

TULARE FARM BUREAU 

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. My name is 

Keith Watkins. I am a local farmer and farm manager for Bee 

Sweet Citrus. I served as second vice president of the Tulare County Farm Bureau, and I am on the California Farm Bureau Federations Water Advisory Committee, and I am Chairman of the Tulare 

County’s Water Committee. 

I am glad you are here in Tulare to meet and talk with local 

farmers and officials today. I would like to commend the Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power for conducting a field hearing 

in the heart of California’s agriculture. 

Tulare County is one of the top two counties in the Nation for 

ag receipts. The 2002 Ag Commission’s Report valued Tulare County commodities at $3.2 billion. 

The top five commodities contain: Milk, oranges, grapes, cattle, 

calves, and peaches. This area is truly unique in its quality of agriculture and its ability to produce all of this on small family farms, 

44

that average about 100 acres in size. But none of this could be 

achieved without sufficient—without adequate water supply. 

As you can tell from today’s weather, this area is a desert. And 

the ability to deliver water has made it bloom. The area is also renowned for its highly efficient use of irrigation water, having been 

a leader in the development of drip and low volume irrigation technology. 

The Members of Congress have a choice to make about where we 

grow the food we need to feed America. When we decide to import 

our food from other countries, we run several risks. We cannot ensure safety. We do not know what laws are in place to protect the 

environment. We do not know what labor codes are followed to protect field laborers and children. 

Our Congress could decide what is important is to produce food 

in California for the farmers following the most stringent environmental and labor laws in the world. Congress can decide what is 

important for America is to continue to enjoy a very safe, reliable, 

and high-quality food supply. 

California cannot produce the food needed to feed our nation 

without water, and America cannot continue to enjoy a safe, bountiful food supply without California. Congress needs to plan for its 

future. Because of a prior lack of leadership and planning, no new 

supplies have been developed in California. The water needed to 

accommodate our state’s expanding population has come from agriculture. 

Another question Congress must answer is whether we conserve 

production agriculture for the environmental benefits it provides or 

make decisions that leave farmers no choice but to sell their land 

for urban development. Not only does urban development use more 

water than the agriculture land that came before it, but also the 

state loses ground water recharge capacity, valuable soils, the vegetation required to manage air quality and global warming. 

In large part one of the reasons why no new water supplies have 

been developed is because our Federal and state agencies have gotten so large that they are no longer able to resolve our water problems. These agencies are hopelessly bogged down in process. Past 

experience seems to suggest that new water supply and plants cannot be developed at the state and Federal level, because agents are 

afraid of being sued by environmental activists; and because of this 

fear, the agencies are lost in the endless process of negotiations 

with every special interest group in the state. 

The water plans that result from these endless planning processes are ineffective because the original plans were distorted so 

significantly that even if the plan were to be followed, the project 

would produce no new yield. 

With this reason, we believe water projects should be negotiated 

and developed at the local level. Because not all have a surface 

water unit, many growers must pump ground water, a condition of 

critical ground water to overdraft still exists in parts of the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

We can’t continue to overdraft our ground water supplies. We 

must have a conjunctive use program that allows ground water recharge in wet years for use in the dry. We need assurances for 

areas of origin and protections of water rights and priorities. 

45

CALFED is violating its own solution principle by creating redirected impacts, solving one problem and creating another one 

somewhere else. Land retirement reduces water demand while devastating local communities and the area’s economy. CALFED needs 

to partner with the local interests in the development of its projects 

and programs. CALFED is supposed to benefit everyone. 

Good science is the key. Sound, neutral science must be at the 

heart of all the decisions that drive the CALFED process and programs. 

While the water users have supported appropriations for the 

CALFED program, the Farm Bureau has been largely disappointed 

that a balanced program of actions has not emerged. CALFED 

needs to do a better job of prioritizing expenditure decisions where 

the greatest benefit can be derived. 

The original purpose of the CALFED long-term planning process 

was to improve water supply and water quality while reducing environmental conflicts in the Delta. Farm Bureau now feels that we 

must try and find our water supply and water quality improvements elsewhere, as significant changes in the Delta pumping are 

not on the horizon. 

We believe several new storage sites arose for that reason, including Temperance Flat, and will go a long way in solving both 

agriculture and the state’s future water needs. 

New supply must be developed to support our state’s growing 

demands. The San Joaquin Valley has the fastest-growing population in California. The environmental enhancements and river 

restoration projects alone require more and more water from already short supplies. The need for more water is real. Water is 

more expensive now than ever before. We believe the beneficiaries 

should pay for developing this new supply, and the beneficiaries 

are the growing urban and environmental needs. 

In closing, I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear 

today, and thank you for coming to Tulare County. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watkins follows:]

Statement of Keith Watkins, Tulare County Farm Bureau,

California Farm Bureau Federation 

Good morning, my name is Keith Watkins, I am a local farmer and farm manager 

for Bee Sweet Citrus Packing. I serve as a vice president of the Tulare Farm Bureau 

and I am on the California Farm Bureau Federation’s Water Advisory Committee 

and serve as the Chairman of the Tulare County Farm Bureau’s Water Committee. 

I am glad you are here in Tulare to meet and talk with local farmers and local 

officials and to learn firsthand our concerns. I’d like to commend the Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power who are here today conducting a field hearing in 

the heart of California’s agriculture. 

Tulare County is one of the top two counties in the nation for agricultural receipts. The 2002 Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner’s Crop Report valued 

Tulare County commodities at $3.2 billion dollars. Tulare County’s top five commodities include: Milk, Oranges, Grapes, Cattle and Calves and Peaches. 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 leader in the 

development of drip and low volume irrigation technology. We have some of the 

highest irrigation efficiencies found anywhere in the world 

As we see it, the members of Congress have a choice to make about where we 

grow the food we need to feed America. 

46

While we get our food from other countries, we run several risks; we cannot ensure its safety; we do not know what environmental laws are in place to protect the 

environment; we do not know what labor codes are followed to protect field laborers, 

including laws that protect children. 

Or, Congress can decide that continuing to produce food in California, where the 

farmers follow the most stringent environmental and labor laws in the world, is 

important. Congress can decide that it is important for America to continue to enjoy 

a very safe, reliable and high quality food supply. 

California cannot continue to produce the food needed to feed our nation without 

water, and America cannot continue to enjoy a safe bountiful food supply without 

California. However, if Congress decides that California’s agriculture is important, 

then Congress needs to plan for its future. Because of a prior lack of leadership and 

planning, no new water supplies have been developed in California so the water 

needed to accommodate our state’s expanding population has come from agriculture. 

A second question Congress must answer is whether we conserve production agriculture for the environmental benefits it provides or make decisions that leave farmers no choice but to sell their land for urban development. When farmers no longer 

have water because they are out bid by the government and urban water districts 

in the water market, farmers are forced to sell their land and the highest bidder 

is usually urban developers. Not only does the urban development that replaces agriculture often use more water than the agricultural land that came before, but the 

state loses groundwater recharge capacity, valuable soils, and the vegetation required to manage air quality and global warming. 

In large part one of the reasons why no new water supplies have been developed 

is because our Federal and state agencies have gotten so large that they are no 

longer able to resolve our water problems. These agencies are hopelessly bogged 

down in process. Past experience seems to suggest that new water supply plans cannot be developed at the state or national level because the agencies are afraid of 

being sued by environmental activists; and because of this fear, the agencies get lost 

in an endless process of negotiating with every special interest group in the state. 

The water plans that result from these endless planning processes are ineffective 

because the original plans are distorted so significantly that even if the plan were 

followed, the project would produce no new yield. For this reason, we believe that 

water projects should be negotiated and developed at the local level. 

CALFED was envisioned by the agricultural water community to resolve some 

long-standing problems, such as groundwater overdraft and insufficient infrastructure. Because not all lands have a surface water entitlement, many growers have 

to pump groundwater. A condition of critical groundwater overdraft still exists in 

parts of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. We did not think that CALFED would 

end up being a threat to the continued use of our current supplies. We needed assurances for areas of origin and protection of water rights and priorities. 

CALFED is violating its own solution principle by creating redirected impacts, 

solving one problem and creating another somewhere else. CALFED needs to partner with local interests in the development of its projects and programs. However, 

instead of being a process of collaboration and consensus, the implementation of 

CALFED projects and programs have not fully lived up to this promise. CALFED 

was suppose to benefit everyone. 

Good science is the key. Sound, neutral science must be at the heart of all of the 

decisions that drive the CALFED process and programs. 

While the water users have supported appropriations for the CALFED program, 

Farm Bureau has been largely disappointed that a balanced program of action has 

not emerged. CALFED needs to do a better job of prioritizing expenditure decisions 

where the greatest benefit can be derived. The benefits of ecosystem investment 

need to be better tracked and displayed. 

The original purpose of the CALFED long-term planning process was to improve 

water supply and water quality while reducing environmental conflicts in the Delta. 

Farm Bureau now feels that we must try and find our water supply and water quality improvements elsewhere, as significant changes in the Delta pumping are not 

on the horizon. New supply has been mentioned as a necessary component to addressing the problems of the Delta. However, it has to be done in combination with 

additional infrastructure improvements. 

New supply must be developed to support our state’s growing demands. The San 

Joaquin Valley is the fastest growing area in California. The environmental enhancement projects and river restoration projects alone require more and more 

water from an already short supply. The need for more water is real. And water 

is more expensive now than ever before. We believe the beneficiaries should pay for 

developing this new supply, and the beneficiaries are the growing urban and environmental users. 

47

Thank you for the invitation to appear today and thank you for coming to Tulare 

County. 

Mr. CALVERT. The first question I’m going to ask is a very easy 

question, and I would think—and I am not going to coach you on 

what the answer should be—so I ask the entire panel: Should Congress and the public be aware of Federal expenditures on CALFEDrelated issues? Is there anybody that objects to that? Let’s put it 

that way. Everybody agrees it is unanimous, for the record? 

WITNESS PANEL. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. All right. May the record reflect the panel says, 

‘‘Yes.’’. 

The next question is: Is it feasible to consider that before any 

money be expended to accomplish CALFED-related projects, that a 

30- to 45-day period for congressional review be conducted? Yes? 

WITNESS PANEL. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. OK. The record is—now, here is the left question: 

Why is it then that the projects involving large-scale construction 

be reviewed by congress, but other projects, i.e., Ecosystem Restoration, Water Shed Protection, do not follow the same requirements for congressional review? 

Let’s start with Mr. Watkins. 

Mr. WATKINS. I agree they should. Everything should be looked 

at when there is money being expended. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. I agree. And I think all too often this process is, 

frankly, used as a way of hanging projects that some people oppose, 

and the regulatory process—very clearly all of them should be required to have review. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Glover? 

Mr. GLOVER. I concur. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Christopher? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I would have no opposition if the money comes 

from the Federal Government, then they have every right to review 

and look at it. 

Mr. NELSON. All expenditures should have to qualify. 

Ms. MORALEZ. I concur, and, furthermore, I have been there on 

the Hill when some of those expenditures are put in in a way 

where nobody realizes that—last minute many funds are expended, 

and I believe that that part, in particular, has to be reviewed very 

clearly. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Upton? 

Mr. UPTON. I think Mr. Clark hit it a while ago where he said, 

‘‘The environmental things seem to take precedence.’’ They seem to 

get a pass on all of their projects, whereas, ours seem to not. I 

think we should have to all play by the same rules. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next question: If the Record of Decision is not authorized in a CALFED bill, how would that impact the ongoing operations that are being done under existing authorities with the intent of improving the operations of the CVP and the State Water 

Project? Do you understand that question? 

I will say it one more time: If the Record of Decision is not authorized—we know we have a Record of Decision—but say it is not 

authorized in a CALFED legislation bill, how would that impact 

48

these ongoing activities that are being done under existing authority, with the intent of improving the operations of both the CVP 

and SWP? Anybody want to start off with that? 

Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, if I think I understand the question 

correctly, it is really kind of a technical one. In terms of whether 

or not in the current round of legislation whether the CALFED— 

Mr. CALVERT. Speak into the mike. 

Mr. CLARK. I’m sorry—whether the CALFED ROD is authorized, 

I am not sure quite frankly whether it is or is not going to have 

a material effect. In fact, I think the intent of Congress is very important that Congress is, in fact, supportive of this process, and 

that you authorize Federal agencies to participate. I think that aspect is particularly important. 

But the CALFED ROD, as I understand it, is the Record of Decision that was the outcome of several years of negotiations between 

state and Federal agencies, and state and Federal agencies acknowledge that the CALFED ROD should not be static, in one 

place; in other words, it should change over time. 

So maybe—I don’t think any of us up here are lawyers, but—

thank God for that—I am not sure that the formal authorization 

of the ROD, what impact that would have. 

Mr. GLOVER. Actually, that is a very good question. There is a 

lot of uncertainty involved in what authorities the Federal agencies 

do have and—on implementing a lot of the other individual components that are now packaged into CALFED. 

I would like to comment that one authority that the Federal 

agencies do have and should be using is the discretion that is allowed them in implementing the Federal regulations. There is a 

tremendous amount of discretion of how it is that you implement 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, as an example. And 

at least a lot of the policies that have been put in place over the 

last decade, from our perspective, have been fairly imbalanced. 

We think that working within the existing statute you can accomplish a lot of the environmental and fishery goals that we have 

established for ourselves, but you can do it in a much more efficient 

manner. And as Tom pointed out, that would expand the windows 

of opportunity we have for moving water and accomplish those objectives as well. 

So the authorities can use discretion on implementing regulations that are in place regardless, and should be used, regardless 

if we do move forward with CALFED. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Christopher? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Yes. It is important to remember that this is 

CALFED, and it was created as a joint alliance between Federal 

and state government. Their participation and your participation in 

this would give a great deal of confidence to those who have invested a lot, currently in the process, and who are, frankly, a little 

bit nervous about the fact that a tremendous amount of money is 

missing from what had been planned, so that would be my response. 

Mr. CALVERT. With that, Mrs. Napolitano, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

49

Mr. Christopher, I am just following up on your statement of 

‘‘money missing,’’ and I am just wondering if you could just elaborate just a moment on that? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I wouldn’t be able to put out specific dollar 

amounts, but it is substantial. I think in the President’s budget it 

called for $10 or $15 million be allocated for the CALFED program. 

I think originally when this was signed back in 2000, I think we 

were talking about a hundred or hundreds of millions of dollars to 

be invested in that, so— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are you talking about Water 2025? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. No, I am talking about the CALFED. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. CALFED? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. What they projected the Federal participation 

would be, or, I guess, CALFED’s year 2003. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Upton, thank you for yesterday. 

I had an opportunity to get a firsthand look at your area and 

Madera, and was impressed. You also showed me the proposals for 

the Temperance area. 

Will you tell us how we should finance this project, and, second, 

do you believe that users or beneficiaries should be paying for the 

program? 

Mr. UPTON. Yeah, I believe beneficiaries pay. As I said in my 

statement, I think this is an investment in the future. There is no 

way that farmers can afford to pay $500 in the cost of the dam. 

I look at this in the future by the United States, for supply that 

is guaranteed. So yes, there would definitely be some public funding. 

You have to remember that the Friant farmers are already paying about 40 percent of their cost of water now goes in for some 

kind of environmental fund. What the government uses it for, 

sometimes, is a mystery to us, but we are already paying a lot, and 

have paid a lot since 1992. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Upton. 

There are other areas that I’d like to touch upon, but I must 

make a brief statement coming from Southern California, and 

having toured—been up here several times and looking at the 

community—farming community, as well as the great part it plays 

in California’s economy. I’m very impressed. 

I can also tell you that when it comes to getting support in certain areas, it doesn’t always equate; simply because, facts on facts, 

80 percent of the water is used by farmers, by ag, and the rest of 

Southern California sometimes has to go through very stringent 

conservation times with that water that we have left. And we also 

have a problem with Colorado River, which does not impact you, 

but we need it in Southern California. That is a third of our water. 

We also must be able to explain to our constituency just in L.A. 

County alone is 11 million people, the county that I live in. We 

have no ag. We have many contaminated aquifers whereupon we 

get our drinking water that also need assistance, and that is one 

of the things that we are trying to do. 

We have many areas where we do underground water storage so 

that we can have some reliable water supply. Those are issues that 

50

we look at in conjunction with the needs of Northern California 

and the ag industry. 

I am very happy to continue to learn, and to be able to understand how that relates to what we need in our areas of the rest 

of Southern California, not even including San Diego, who is having all kinds of water problems. 

So I thank you much, and I will just turn it back to the Committee. 

Mr. UPTON. I want to respond very quickly. I wanted to thank 

you for visiting Friant, and say that we meet with Metropolitan almost on a weekly basis in order to try to address your needs in a 

cooperative way. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Pombo? 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. It strikes me in listening to the testimony from this panel, how far we have come in 

a relatively short period of time in terms of a recognition of what 

the competing issues are. 

Not very many years ago, many of the people on this panel had 

a very adversarial approach when it came to environmental restoration and the need to protect water quality and the dealing with 

the Delta, and, you know, we had those fights going on. 

In listening to the testimony by most of the people that are on 

this panel, there is a very broad recognition that as we move forward, we have to look at, ‘‘How do we increase water supplies? 

How do we increase the ability to convey water from one area of 

the state to another at the same time that we are doing a better 

job of protecting the environment? And that is something that just 

didn’t exist 20 years ago. 

And, you know, in listening to this panel talk about that, I think 

shows that we have come a long way in being able to do that. I 

think most of you recognize that that is our future. We have to—

that we have to make that part of any new water systems that are 

put in place, and how we can do that. 

One thing that I do want to ask the panel is the proposal that 

has come up in recent years about developing some kind of a socalled one stop shopping, where you have all of the state and Federal agencies that put their cards on the table from the very beginning, they say, ‘‘If you want to do this, you come in, all cards on 

the table and everything is out there,’’ and they tell you what you 

have to do in order to move forward with that particular project. 

The idea of doing this has, I think, gained some steam in recent 

months and given everybody the ability to know what objections 

there are or what hurdles there are that you have to jump over in 

order to move forward with a project or in the management of your 

current projects. 

I would like the panel to comment on that idea, and I would like 

to start with Mr. Glover. The ability to have everybody, you know, 

so-called located in one place, one-stop shopping. ‘‘This is what you 

have to do.’’ Instead of having the ability of one agency to play off 

of another agency to stop things from moving. 

Mr. GLOVER. As a project manager, you deal with a number of 

regulatory agencies, and to even make it more complicating, you 

have some Federal and some state. They have different standards. 

51

So in a number of instances, you are almost sandwiched between 

the two of them trying to figure out what you really need to do. 

They have a sit-down agreement initially. If you have NMFS and 

NOAA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water 

Quality Board from the state, and Fish and Game to kind of give 

you guidelines and regulations. It would streamline the process and 

also reduce the cost of moving the projects. 

Mr. POMBO. So you would support the idea of doing that? I know 

it would make your life easier. 

Mr. GLOVER. As a project manager, it would simplify things quite 

a bit. It would also reduce the. 

Mr. POMBO. Would anybody else like to comment? 

Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you. Actually, I think all of us would support 

what you are saying. I think one of the things we have run into 

is that while it is good plan—but once you get into—in fact, one 

of the things that CALFED was founded on was to get all the regulatory agencies together in one room, and that everything was 

going to be done in the light of day; in other words, there were 

going to be joint decisions that were going to be made, and that 

these would have public review. 

One of the things that has happened to CALFED is that all of 

the Federal and state regulatory agencies, while they participate in 

the process, they reserve their right under law to perform as they 

are required; for example, the Endangered Species Act. 

So all these agencies when they sit down, various agencies have 

trumped in the process. So that while on the one hand, you may 

have a one-stop shop, but whether or not they are willing to acquiesce the decisionmaking process is the function of their legal authority. 

So I would think, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that you can get 

a legislative process, and I don’t know, environmental, if you can 

get people that not only authorize them to participate in this type 

of process, but to have some kind of an outcome so that people just 

don’t fall back to their regulatory powers and back into the individual pieces of time decision. 

It is a problem that you put your finger on. It is very serious 

and, in fact, right now, this Banks Pumping Plant, it is the Corps 

of Engineers that—Banks Pumping Plant today is a paper limitation. We do not have to go build anything. Today, if the paper limitation—the water, by the way, being lost by Metropolitan, on the 

issue of the Colorado River issue and the storage, was not a storage 

issue. It is a pumping issue. 

If we could have pumped that water, and we have—the pumps 

are in place. They are there today. If we could have been allowed 

to lift this limitation, regulatory limitation on the pumps, the water 

could have been pumped and saved, and it wasn’t. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Moralez? 

Ms. MORALEZ. To add onto that, being with the Reclamation 

Board of Directors, I see a lot of the conflict that occurs from one 

agency interpreting the law a certain way or the regulations, and 

then there is conflict with either state or Federal perspectives. 

I think another very important issue that maybe people don’t 

like to bring to the table is because we have civil servants doing 

52

those jobs, some of them may have their own ideas or their personal biases with bias toward the environment or other biases, and 

they tend to interpret those regulations in a way that is more 

comfortable for their way of thinking, and then—I don’t know how 

you deal with that. 

That is a very important issue that is creating some of the problems that we have to deal with regulations. 

The other part that I see is that a lot of those executives, top 

management or middle management, have a lot of power. And 

when you look at the composition of the people making those decisions and recommendations, there are certain relationships that 

are developed, and you have problems coming out of those relationships. 

I don’t know how best to put it, but there is conflict that makes 

our life even worse; trying to get some of our projects going forward 

and working with the limited money that we have. 

The outreach also that has occurred has been, in my opinion, not 

very good. When we don’t have the general public understanding 

what is going on and how our Federal funding is being spent, it is 

very difficult to get the support for us to get the public to understand that this money is not just water for the farmers or water 

for the environmentalists, this is something that affects every single human being in the state. 

Unless we do better outreach and public information to teach the 

public, it is going to be difficult for us to really get the support that 

we need to get the funding necessary to make these efforts go forward. 

Mr. UPTON. I like the idea of a one-stop shop. I think one additional thing, of what I would like to see—and I don’t know if you 

can do it legislatively—is to have a higher bar to be—before a lawsuit could be filed to stop a project. Right now it seems like anybody with $25 to become an environmental organization, and get 

a Volkswagen bus can come in and stop the project. It increases the 

cost, and I think we need to address. 

Mr. POMBO. Just in conclusion, I know my time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman, but I can tell you that the Federal agencies right now, 

as frustrating as it is for a lot of you and for us, a lot of the decisions that they are making, are based on trying to avoid a lawsuit. 

And it really has nothing to do with the best way to run the 

project, or what is best for the environment, or what delivers the 

water the best, or anything else. It is how do we do this and avoid 

being sued? 

Everything that they are doing now is tied up in court over one 

thing or another, and that is destroying their ability to move forward, because everything is being done to try to avoid a lawsuit. 

That has gotten extremely frustrating for the bureaucracy that is 

in charge of doing this stuff, and for us, who have oversight over 

the agencies. The things that we all agree on that should be done, 

aren’t being because lawsuits and because it is eating up their entire budgets, which is a real problem, but thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Don’t worry, Richard. I am not going to cutoff the 

Chairman. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct 

this to Dan Nelson. 

53

Dan, could you please describe your thoughts regarding the status of plans to diversify refuge water supplies? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. And a brief background, as you know, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, passed in 1992, fundamentally changed how it is we operate and maintain the Central Valley 

Project. I mean that in a very literal sense of the word. 

We operate entirely different than we did in 1992 and have experienced shortages since that time in trying to implement CVPIA. 

But along with the rededication of water for fish and wildlife 

purposes, there are provisions in CVPIA that call for the mitigation 

and the minimizing of the impacts to CVPIA contractors. 

Although over the last 10 years we have done a really comprehensive job in implementing the environmental improvements 

of CVPIA, we have not implemented the mitigation or the minimizing impacts provisions of CVPIA. And the best example is the 

refuge supply. Over 250,000 acre feet south of the Delta has been 

rededicated from historical uses, specifically agriculture, to wildlife 

refuges south of the Delta. 

That is a big, big chunk of water and certainly a good percentage 

of water that is available to agriculture south of the Delta. 

Along with provision of dedicating this water is a direction to the 

Secretary of Interior to diversify those supplies to minimize impacts. And there has never been an effort or resources to diversify 

those supplies. 

So what we are suggesting is that the Secretary of Interior initiate and—by the way, CALFED also acknowledges that there 

hasn’t been a planned development and there needs to be a 

planned development and talks to the Secretary of Interior and the 

state of California to work through a plan with the rest of the 

CALFED agencies that would diversify these spots. 

A lot of it is centered in conveyance. The Delta is one way of 

doing it; another is development of ground water resources south 

of the Delta, and there are opportunities to do that. But the point 

is: We need to be serious about—about diversifying those supplies 

and dedicating appropriate resources. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Dan. You talk about a lot of conveyance. I am happy that you have discussed that today, because that 

is really something that we need to deal with. It is not just building the storage, which I advocate also, but getting it where it needs 

to be. I also want to mention an issue with me about credibility. 

Mr. Upton said in his opening remarks that water users are getting along more appropriately today, and I appreciate that and applaud that. Your cooperation with Westlands. 

Mr. Clark mentioned the issue of credibility, and the fact that 

you have to maintain Delta soundness and the South Delta issues 

are important, and you made those commitments. And I applaud 

that because that is part of my district as well, and that is important to me. 

My question to all of you is: I am very concerned as we go on 

here about people who make commitments, and then don’t keep 

them once they get their part done. Certainly, if we are going to 

have this process move forward, we need to have a situation where 

honorable people can do honorable business and keep commitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
54

ments. If you get your part of the deal and then take your toys and 

go home, that isn’t going to make this process work. 

So if anyone has any comments with regard to that, I would be 

happy to— 

Mr. NELSON. Well, I would like to address that issue. That is 

something that we struggle with in our region. Back in 1993, we 

were one of the first agricultural groups that started working with 

other ag areas and urban areas and environmental communities on 

trying to figure out how it is that we were going to move forward 

with managing California resources. 

This was just post drought, and ESA issue and CVPIA, and so 

we were trying to make sense out of all this. Through all of that, 

we came up with Delta Accord. As you recall, as part of implementing the accord, we established standards on the Delta. And I 

recall on the podium on signing day—then Secretary Babbitt saying, ‘‘A deal is a deal.’’ And these are the regulations and standards 

that we are going to move forward with. 

Now, that was a short-term program. Now, we are going to work 

on this CALFED, which is a long-term program. We have less 

water today in our region available to us than we did back in 1994 

when we signed the Delta Accord. 

So, frankly, that is one of the things that we have really been 

struggling with. We bought off on the notion that everybody gets 

better together, and that we will move forward in a balanced way. 

We haven’t experienced that, but we are still at the table, and we 

are still striving for that balance. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Radanovich? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Christopher, welcome to the Committee. I have got a couple 

of questions. First of all, let me ask this: Is Friends of the River 

a party with NRDC in the lawsuit of San Joaquin River lawsuit to 

restore the river? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. We are. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. So you are familiar enough to probably answer 

some questions? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Very basic. I am not a party to the settlement 

negotiations, actually, but I believe later on this afternoon, there 

will be a person available at your hearing in Elk Grove who is 

party to that. I can answer some very basic— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you have a plan to rewater the river? I 

think there was some discussion or some plans that were being put 

forward that had the idea of rewatering the river at no net loss to 

urban or ag water uses. Is that still your concept or idea? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Yes. We would like to think so. I personally 

haven’t been involved with it, but over the last 4 years, there have 

been seemingly very productive talks about different ways and 

ideas that we could get water back into the San Joaquin River, 

which is in some areas virtually dry; that would be beneficial for 

both, not only to regional farmers here, but downstream in the San 

Joaquin and better for the river itself. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you have a handle as to how much water 

it is going to take to rewater the river? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I wouldn’t have that statistic. 

55

Mr. RADANOVICH. Friends of the River doesn’t have that information? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I can provide that. I would be able to provide 

that, yes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. That would be terrific. 

Does Friends of the River have a specific plan in mind now that 

you could also provide me information on as to your opinion of, 

No. 1, what it would take, and how you would do it? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Oh, we would appreciate— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you can’t speak to that now, but you will get 

me the information? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Would appreciate that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Let me ask you a question of the—earlier in 

my statement, and you can agree or disagree with the numbers, 

but if it is true that 46 percent of the state’s water is used for environment, and 43 percent is used on farms, and 11 percent is used 

in homes and businesses, and we are trying to make the state 

whole in water, do you support increased water storage if 

California has a means of making up for any future shortages that 

we may have? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. First of all, you are referring to Bulletin 160, 

which was produced in 1998, currently, right now, the top members 

of the legislature in California, the— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Actually, I am not. I am just speaking of 

Friends of the River, though. Is it the Friends of River’s position 

to support increased water storage as means of bringing the state 

whole? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. We would if they were along with the 

CALFED Record of Decision, and if they were environmentally benign, if beneficiaries paid as called for in the Record of Decision, 

and that we stay true to the Record of Decision. We would certainly 

support—we have supported the California Record of Decision 

and— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, but would you increase—would you support increased water storage that would be either on- or off-stream 

above ground water as a means of meeting some of these needs? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. If those concerns were met, that were set 

forth in the Record of Decision, of course we would. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. You had made a statement earlier about, 

which is contrary to the view that I am coming from, about how 

we should not say, ‘‘Listen. You are not going to get this unless I 

get this,’’ when we are putting the stakeholders together, and try 

to move things forward. It has been kind of a bone of contention 

with me that in the stakeholder process that was agreed upon in 

1995, ‘‘We all get better together,’’ That the vast majority of the 

money spent so far has been for environmental restoration. 

The reason why I bring that up is: There is a concern that if one 

particular party gets out too far against the other that they begin 

to work against the interest of the other stakeholders if they were 

satisfied, and that has been my concern all along. 

In the ROD is mentioned some storage projects, including Los 

Vaqueros, which was agreed upon by all people that signed this 

CALFED agreement back in December 1994. 

56

Are you aware or is Friends of the River party to any lawsuits 

that are being contemplated on Los Vaqueros Reservoir right now? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. No, we are not. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Is there any anticipation of filing a lawsuit? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Not on behalf of Friends of the River, no. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Kole, can you give me an opinion of why the 

NRDC has decided to go back to court instead of continuing to 

work on the cooperative basis with Friant to develop a plan that 

we would rewater the river that would not take away water from 

agriculture? 

Mr. UPTON. I can give an opinion. I think the water business is 

the people’s business. And there are only three people that started 

this process with NRDC and carried it all the way through without 

any leaves or absences, and they are all on the Friant side. 

What happened was we started out with neutral goals to try to 

protect this $4 billion economy that we have in Friant. We have no 

water. No loss; that was the agreement. 

On the other side from NRDC, what they were seeking was a 

naturally producing salmon fishery. That was their goal. There was 

a lot of work on river restoration, on using the same molecule of 

water for both ag and environmental restoration. We didn’t have a 

lot of successes. It worked really good for a couple of years. 

The studies we did on restoration and on the water supply, begin 

to reveal in the last year, that it was going to take anywhere from 

300,000 to 1 billion acre feet of water to do the salmon fishery. And 

it was going to take about a billion dollars to redo the ponding beds 

and that kind of thing. But we could see from our perspective there 

was no way we can do that without sufficient storage and without 

affecting Friant. 

Every storage proposal we came up with was vetoed; even including putting gates on Mammoth Pools to give us 20,000 acres was 

denied. At that point, then we tried a different strategy. Why not 

have a warm water fishery. You have salmon. That is what the 

studies showed. You can use additional money you saved to enhance a salmon fishery somewhere else. That way the salmon fishermen would be happy to get more fish. They would have a fishery 

right on the San Joaquin. That would meet the law and make 

people happy. 

At that point, 5 days before the study was—NRDC issued a press 

release and went back to court. You would have to ask them exactly why, and I told Mr. Lang, minority resource person, we were 

willing to meet anywhere at any time in front of you or anybody 

else and discuss this issue, because we are heavily involved in the 

task force in the environmental enhancement of the river. 

If you want my personal opinion, I think NRDC thinks all they 

have to do is convince one judge to give them what they want, and 

it is a lot easier than trying to convince all the state growers in 

the Valley. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. In your opinion, can the San Joaquin River be 

rewatered without increased water supply or without taking water 

away from agriculture or urban uses? 

Mr. UPTON. Not as a salmon fishery, no way. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

57

Mr. Glover, thank you for being here. I need to ask you a quick 

question. Your agency has been working on a 100-year event flood 

plain proposal for Fresno, Madera, and Merced Counties, or in that 

region; can you tell me whether it is DWR’s position to set the flood 

plain there at 71,000 cubic feet per second? 

Mr. GLOVER. I can’t answer that question, but I would be happy 

to get back to you on that issue with that answer. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you would, I would like the answer to that 

question. I also understand, in fact, I know of a fact that there is 

a model produced by Citizens of Madera County, and local water 

districts developed that demonstrates the flood plain can be set at 

21,000 cubic feet per second, not the 71,000. 

Given the disparity between those numbers, would you—would 

DWR be willing to sit down with some of these constituents that 

have this plan, and be willing to discuss this issue with him? 

Mr. GLOVER. I am sure I can answer that question as yes. I am 

sure we would be willing to discuss that issue. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Upton, I had another question for you too. 

Would you be proposing and promoting the idea of increased water 

storage in Temperance Flat if CVPIA had made the mandate that 

a lot of the state’s water resources shifted it from ag uses to environmental uses? 

Mr. UPTON. I think we probably would be doing that anyway. I 

have heard about Temperance Flat for a number of years, and the 

fact that Friant Dam was built in the wrong place, and it should 

have been built at Temperance Flat because there is so much more 

capacity. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. But the fact is if not the increased environmental demand being brought on by CVPIA, whether good or not, 

parts of it are good, precluded the need for more water storage in 

your district, don’t you think? 

Mr. UPTON. Well, I have got to tell you, I have got to compliment 

Congressman Nunes, because I think so many of us in this water 

business have been brainwashed from listening to some of the environmentalists: ‘‘No new dams. No trying to storage.’’ We are trying 

to think of all these other ways to do this, but I can remember my 

dad, he started in the water business, saying that we needed Temperance Flat for the future. I think it should have been built years 

ago. 

I think, your point, yes, with all the environmental requirements 

and things that probably maybe wouldn’t have come to the floor 

right now, it should have been done years ago. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I guess what I want to make sure was brought 

up was the idea of when it is mentioned that, ‘‘Gosh, Friant, if you 

want increased water storage, go pay for it.’’ But I think the point 

needs to be made it probably wouldn’t be pursuing something like 

Temperance Flat, had it not been that CVPIA pledged water for environmental uses over and above an increased demand for 

California’s water supply for that, which, in my view, justifies state 

and Federal money being spent on Temperance Flat, and that the 

users of Friant should not be charged with the full cost of that proposal, because it is the state and Federal interest and the citizens 

of California that are deemed a higher priority in this water being 

58

used for environmental purposes and put the effort to get more 

water storage or put that to the front. 

I just want to make that case to justify the fact that it is in the 

public’s interest to have increased water supply in California, and 

they should be participating in something like Temperance Flat. 

Mr. UPTON. I agree with you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sorry to put you on the spot like that. I think 

that is all for my questions. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. Nunes? 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Upton, in your testimony you talked about the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act in regards to the restoration fund money. Could you expand on that a little bit? How much 

have Friant Water Users paid into the restoration fund and the 

other CVP users over the last decade? 

Mr. UPTON. I think it has been over $100 million, if my figures 

are correct, and don’t know; Dan Nelson is here. 

Dan, do you have that? 

Mr. NELSON. There is over $100 million. 

Mr. NUNES. $100 million total between all water users? 

Mr. NELSON. We can get the exact numbers to you, but I think 

it—we would be happy to forward those numbers to you, but my 

impression is that it comes out to about $35 million a year, and we 

have been paying into that for about 10 years now. 

Mr. NUNES. So would it be accurate to say possibly a little more? 

Mr. NELSON. Very possible. 

Mr. NUNES. I have asked, I think, twice, and this will be the 

third time, Mr. Chairman, for the Secretary of the Interior to provide me and the Committee a detailed report of where this restoration fund money has went to. 

Can any of you tell me where the restoration fund money is, because I can’t seem to get anyone from the Department of Interior 

to be able to tell me, or did it disappear? 

Mr. UPTON. We have asked the same question. We know for a 

fact that in mid or late ’90’s some of it went into the general fund. 

Mr. NUNES. Does anyone else—Mr. Christopher? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I can talk to a number of things, and I am—

of where some of the money has gone. We are looking at restoring 

salmon fisheries, hopefully trying to get some of the endangered 

species off the list in the areas of Clear Creek and Battle Creek. 

Obviously, just like everybody else, people who rely on fishing environment for recreation in their income as well, we have run into 

problems with bureaucracy. Some of that stuff has been stalled up 

there. There has been wetlands rehabilitation here and outside the 

Bay Area. 

So those are some of the types of things that are being done with 

ecosystem restoration money. I wouldn’t say that it has gone up in 

the thin air, but that would be my response to that. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. One of the things that I think you need to be aware 

of and certainly something that would be appropriate for you to 

look at some fixes for the future and how the restoration fund was 

set up is: Generally, the restoration fund—the payments by the 

water users go directly into the Federal general fund. And a lot of 

59

times we may put—let’s use hypothetically $35 million annually—

into the restoration fund, but it gets lost in the Federal 

appropriations process, and so we don’t necessarily get the benefits 

of the appropriations back to that $35 million. 

We ought to consider a local revolving fund to make sure that 

money—if the water user is going to put that kind of money forward for restoration, then they ought to be getting the benefit of 

it. And it ought to stay here in California and be used for what it 

was intended for. 

Mr. NUNES. I agree, but, I think, at the very minimum, Mr. 

Chairman, we should have, as was called for in the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, a report yearly as to where the money 

was spent, because we have yet to see an official report from the 

Secretary of the Interior since the signing of CVPIA. 

Mr. Christopher, you had another comment? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I was going to say that we have seen some increase of targeted fish species, such as salmon and steelhead coming back into the system, so I mean there are some positive signs 

here. It is not like it is all doomsday from that perspective. These 

are small, incremental improvements, so we are seeing something. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Christopher, if Temperance Flat was built, was 

authorized by the U.S. Congress, would the idea that we would use 

part of the water to restore the river, i.e., river restoration, would 

it be OK to use these restoration fund moneys to finance part of 

the building of that project? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I would have to look at any type of proposal, 

but if there was something that could be done in the process of 

doing Temperance Flat, which could restore to some degree, freeflowing river, that would be something that would be looked at, 

and that would be something that would be very attractive to 

people downstream of the river in places like— 

Mr. NUNES. That deals with the beneficiary pays theory? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. If it was something that could be done, then 

I would say that would be something to look at. But, you know, 

with beneficiary pays, everybody agrees with the concept until they 

are identified as a beneficiary. So it would be something that would 

have to be looked at, and something that I personally—I don’t 

think Friends of the River would put off the table. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. I just—I really had to add my two cents on this 

issue. I think you are touching on a very important issue on beneficiary pays. It has come up a number of times in the context providing new water supply that the beneficiaries must pay. Nobody 

says anything whenever it is—we are talking about water being 

taken. 

When CVPIA was enacted and that 800,000 acre feet of the yield 

of the Central Valley Project was dedicated to environmental purposes, it was dedicated without compensation. 

When the State Water Resources Control Board enacted the— 

Mr. NUNES. So you are saying the beneficiary didn’t pay in that 

instance? 

Mr. CLARK. I think the beneficiaries pay is a two-way street. 

When water gets taken, there should be compensation. And, in fact, 

Kern County is involved in a very important court case on ESA to 

60

where the courts have found that taking one’s water supply, water 

rights, is a compensable action under the ESA, and we are in the 

court of claims right now. 

And I think that is a very, very important issue, because we are 

getting—with all due respect to Mr. Christopher, when he said, 

‘‘Sure. We support surface storage if the beneficiary pays,’’ well, the 

point is: That agriculture and the urban water users throughout 

this state have lost about 2 million acre feet in the last 10 years 

to new environmental protections and environmental programs. All 

of those came without compensation. 

Now, when it is time to make the water up, people are talking 

about beneficiary pay. And I am saying that this is an important 

issue that I would like to see you folks get involved in it, but I 

think it is a way of saying in code, ‘‘We oppose new surface storage, 

because we know agriculture can’t afford to pay.’’. 

Thank you, very much. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Christopher, time is quickly expiring here, but 

I do have one more question. 

Are you familiar with the Kings River at all, and Senator Boxer’s 

proposal to put the Rogers Crossing area into the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Familiar with it, yes; vaguely familiar. 

Mr. NUNES. I assume you are in support of that? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Yes, Friends of the River has been working on 

that bill with Senator Boxer. 

Mr. NUNES. I would like to hear, and I know that we don’t have 

any representatives from the Kings River here, but I do want to 

comment to this Committee, that I feel that is a bad idea to do 

that. And I also want to say that we should—at the same time we 

are studying these other rivers, putting water projects there, we 

should also be studying Rogers Crossing to possibly build a water 

storage project on that river also at the same time. 

Mr. Christopher, you want to comment, and then Mr. Upton? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. With regard to the beneficiaries paying, you 

know, California has historically supported a very vibrant fishing 

economy; billions of dollars have come into California by people 

who make their living fishing and white-water recreation. $75 billion has been spent on white-water recreation. We extracted that 

water and decimated fisheries 50 years ago; there was not compensation for those groups that relied on that a great deal. 

So you have to look at it in a historical context too, and weigh 

the different measures when looking at it. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. 

Mr. Upton? 

Mr. UPTON. I would like to address your original question on 

CVPIA funding. One thing that we did is we had a joint study 

through the Bureau of Reclamation within RDC on temperature in 

the Friant Dam. The reason we did that is because the type of fishery that you have is dependent upon the temperature. 

What we were finding that the temperature in Friant Dam is so 

hot that the salmon would not be able to survive in the San Joaquin, even if it was linked up. Furthermore, even when it got to 

Merced where there is an existing salmon fishery, that water was 

so hot it was going to kill the existing ecosystem. 

61

So even though we put the money in, and I think the study has 

very valid results for what kind of fishery we are going to have, 

we didn’t have control over it, so it is a dead issue. 

Mr. NUNES. Well, one of the things that I find is also interesting 

on this topic of water storage and how it relates to fish is that 

without water storage the drought that we suffered through the 

’80’s and into the ’90’s, if there was no water projects there, I can’t 

imagine that there would have even been any fish left after the 

eight or 9 years of drought that we went through. 

Just for the record, I think that Mr. Pombo, you have talked 

about this in the past, but they are not mutually exclusive. Water 

projects and fish are not mutually exclusive. I think that there are 

strong benefits by building some of these water projects. 

And I want to thank the panelists today and the Committee for 

coming up here—coming out to the San Joaquin Valley to listen to 

the panel. I would like to thank you in the audience for showing 

up this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CALVERT. I have a couple of questions. Mr. Pombo has a couple questions, and I think we have another round here. 

As you are probably aware of what is going on with the Colorado 

River with the quantification settlement agreement given to the 

upper and lower basin states, which we were unable to meet, and 

the Department of Interior has cut us back on the Colorado River 

to our protected right, that had an affect throughout the state of 

California; an immediate effect. 

One, Metropolitan, went up into Northern California and acquired water to offset its loss in the Colorado River, and acquired 

that water, as you probably have been reading in the paper of the 

conflict with the state on where to store the water in the interim, 

but that water has been acquired. 

I am going to ask a question that I think we need to have for 

the record. If you have water rights, and you own them, do you believe you have the right to sell that water. 

Start with Mr. Watkins? 

Mr. WATKINS. I think as a water right holder, you would have 

the right to move that water as long as it wasn’t detrimental to the 

area of the origin and wasn’t detrimental to the neighboring areas. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. I agree with the comment that was just made. I 

think there are things that we need to do to streamline the ability 

to make transfers of water statewide. Quite frankly, along with the 

environmental restrictions, really—the availability for sellers to 

other buyers. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Our area relies heavily on water transfers every 

year to make up for some of the shortages, so we certainly think 

that transfer is a major or should be a major component of how it 

is that we mandate water resources. There are, however, very real 

conditions and very real circumstances that we need to be aware 

of. 

What comes to mind at the top of the list, of course, is what we 

refer to as ‘‘third-party impact’’; especially in rural communities 

that rely on this water to be used locally for their rural economies. 

62

Ms. MORALEZ. I think that is an issue that is so crucial to the 

local economies, and I believe at this point that we may have some 

counties that are looking into it from the perspective of them trying 

to put a stop to water being transferred. However, they own the 

water rights, and that is their privilege. 

I think with time, we are going to be able to come up with a plan 

where they can—the water rights individuals may be able to exercise those rights, but within conditions that protect the local environment and the local economy. 

Mr. UPTON. It is a third-party impact issue, and a lot of counties 

have established water committees and ordinances to look at that 

very thing, but I don’t think you have an absolute right to do that 

and affect everybody else. It has got to be under certain issues. 

Mr. CALVERT. The reason I bring that up is obviously, water 

transfers are going to be brought up as an issue. As a matter of 

fact, the NRDC has been a proponent of water transfers in the 

past. I find this—as you know, we are in a situation in Southern 

California—it certainly affects Northern California also—where the 

Imperial Irrigation District is attempting to work out an agreement 

with the city of San Diego. 

This is probably the mother of all water transfers. We are talking 

about a significant amount of water. Of the 4.4 million acre feet 

that is in the Colorado River, the Imperial Irrigation District has 

protected rights to 3.3 million acre feet of water. 

Now, we went through a lot of work to do this. And we cannot 

seem to get the support all of a sudden of the same organizations 

that say they are in favor of this. 

I want to ask Mr. Christopher: One, you mentioned in your testimony in the aspect of water transfers, it seems that if we could get 

to the point where we could work out the technicalities with them: 

Do you have the right to transfer water; and, two, do you have an 

ongoing right to how that water is utilized and what are the thirdparty impacts? 

I understand all of these other issues. In the past, I have headed 

papers and so forth on water market transfers, and conceptually 

these things have worked. But it is interesting that the environmental community now is shifting. 

Can you explain to us why in some of these water transfers now 

that—I am trying to find one that they are now in favor of. Can 

you explain? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Water transfers in general? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Anytime you can take water from one area 

and transfer it to another place that is in need, and it can be done 

in a way, like you said, all the other technicalities are dealt with, 

it presents an opportunity for more water not having to invest a 

tremendous amount of more money in surface storage. It gives us 

an opportunity to do that, so I think that is why you see some of 

the— 

Mr. CALVERT. This is an important aspect, because, obviously, 

many people in the environmental community are opposed to surface storage, opposed to off-stream—by the aspects of storage, but 

they always went back to water transfers and the concept of late 

is now that will—maybe now that some of these transfers are 

63

happening, all of a sudden we see opposition. The first we hear 

from them is the growth inducement impact of the water transfer, 

which we had never heard before until, obviously, that these were 

going to take place. Any comment? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I think the shift in the quantity of the amount 

of water that we are going to continue to convey, is it going to be 

a way of life whereby that is what we are going to rely on, that 

people are going to simply take water that they have rights to, and 

then sell that water down south is a matter of public policy. I think 

a lot of people are concerned about doing it on the large scale, because water is the basic need of every person and everything. This 

idea of taking it for a cheap price, and then selling it for a large 

price is disconcerting to some people. 

Mr. CALVERT. If the environmental water community bought the 

water and put it into the environment, would that be a proper 

water transfer? Would that be at that point OK? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Well— 

Mr. CALVERT. —if someone was—if a body was willing to buy 

that for environmental purposes? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. You know, it comes down to the fundamental 

choice: Do we buy water— 

Mr. CALVERT. I am just asking the question. 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Do we buy water to supply our fish in our rivers and people that rely on them and use them? It is a fundamental choice. It is a value judgment we have to make. Are we 

going to go that route or not? 

Mr. CALVERT. So that water shouldn’t be paid for? Is that the answer to the question? 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I am just saying, it is a value judgment that 

we have to make. 

Mr. POMBO. I would like to, I guess, go back to you, if I could. 

In the response to an earlier question on surface storage, you said 

that you would not be opposed to surface storage if it was one of 

the criteria—if it was ‘‘environmentally benign.’’. 

Can you expand on that a little bit? That sounds like a very high 

bar to set. 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Well, I mean there are studies that could be 

shown—let’s say for example, Los Vaqueros Reservoir was funded 

and operated in a certain way, that it could actually benefit the environment in fisheries that we have invested so much money to try 

to restore. 

The problem with anything like this is that none of these have 

yet proven to be feasible. They’re still in the beginning stages. Nobody has stepped forward to say, ‘‘We want this water. This is how 

much we are willing to pay for it.’’ Environmental reviews have yet 

to be done, so we were at the very beginning stage of some of these 

things. If it comes out and we see that the amount of water that 

Los Vaqueros contains and the way that it is operated can benefit 

the environment and those who make their livelihood on fishing, I 

don’t think that we would come out in opposition. 

Mr. POMBO. So—and I am trying to understand this, because 

there is—I think we have to quit pretending that there is anything 

that we can do that is environmentally benign, because anything 

that man does impacts the environment. If we went in and took 

64

down all the dams that have been built in California in last 75 or 

100 years, that would have a huge impact on the environment, and 

not necessarily good. In terms of fish and the fisheries in 

California. 

As Mr. Nunes said when you talk to some of the old-timers that 

have been around here for a long time, they will tell you about 

walking across these rivers during drought time when there was no 

water in these rivers, and now there is water running all the time. 

I go back on my own family, and I was raised in the Delta. My 

father was raised in the Delta, and they talked about when there 

were droughts, and there was no water in the Delta. The rivers 

that ran by my house were dropped during drought time. Now 

there is water all the time in there. 

So there are different impacts. Anything that we do is going to 

have an impact on the environment. When you talk about being 

‘‘environmentally benign,’’ I think that—that is impossible to say 

that anything that we do is going to be ‘‘environmentally benign.’’ 

What a lot of these guys are talking about is trying to build new 

surface storage, new water projects, and have as little impact on 

the environment as they possibly can in building those, and I think 

that is—I think that is a huge difference from what you are talking 

about. 

That is where I think that we need to bridge that gap in terms 

of people like you and others in the environmental community. I 

think people need to understand. You guys can all go out and talk, 

and you sound the same, and you sound like you are saying—in 

agreement in what you are saying, but you are not. There is a huge 

difference in what it is you are talking about. I think that is important. 

You talked about being environmentally benign. Building or expanding Los Vaqueros is going to have an impact on growth. It is 

going to have an impact on the ability of those communities to provide water for their cities in that area. That is going to have an 

impact on the environment. 

When you put ‘‘rewater the San Joaquin’’ that has one impact on 

Friant, and it has a different impact on my district. Good or bad, 

it has an impact. You know, all of these projects that we are going 

through and that we are talking about, there are dozens of them 

that are on the—in the planning stages that people are talking 

about. What is the impact on the environment if every one of those 

could there be a positive that comes out of it? How do we move forward in providing more water. Not just in my district—it is funny 

because to hear Grace talk about Northern California, I think this 

is Southern California. 

When you talk about the impact on—in my area, my farmers 

talk about this as being when we ship water south, and the impact 

that has on us. So California is obviously very complex when it 

comes to water, but at some point if you guys want to be honest 

participants in this process, there has to be something you are in 

favor of, and there has to be some kind of water project that is 

going to provide new net yield both for our cities and for agriculture that you are in favor of. 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. And, like I said before, when I say ‘‘environmentally benign,’’ I am certainly realizing that every project will 

65

have impact in some way or form on the environment. There is an 

opportunity to use some of these in a beneficial way, and hopefully 

can benefit and satisfy some of the people up here too. We certainly 

hope that too. But I will just—I would like to add that we have 

more tools in our water supply toolbox than we did 50 years ago 

or 10 years ago. 

It is amazing to think of some of the advances that we are making in agriculture which could produce 150,000—1.5 million acre 

feet south in the next decade or two decades can produce 800,000 

acre feet. 

Not looking at it from the environmental perspective, but looking 

at it from the economic perspective, that could be beneficial to focus 

on those types of things in addition to water storage. 

Mr. POMBO. I do think that we have to concentrate on those 

things. Places like San Francisco should be doing that, and places 

along the coast should be doing more of that. I look at what agriculture has done in the last 20 years, the advances they have made 

in the use of water. 

Unfortunately, it seems like they get absolutely no credit for that 

whatsoever. We still get into the debate, ‘‘Well, agriculture uses all 

of this water, and we should be transferring that to our cities.’’ And 

they get no credit for the amount of water that they have saved 

through conservation. Everybody keeps talking about conservation; 

we are going to make it up through conservation. Well, agriculture 

has done its part, and they have continued to improve. They continued to use less and less water all the time, but that—that has 

an impact when they use less water. That has an impact on the 

environment in those areas when they are using less water. That, 

what we have seen in the Valley, and we have seen along the coast 

down south that when farmers use less water, it impacts the endangered species in those areas too. The endangered species didn’t 

live here when this was a desert. A lot of the endangered species 

that exist in the Central Valley today are a result of agriculture 

being here. 

So when you take away the water from the farmers, that has an 

impact on the environment. So everything that we are doing has 

an impact. I just think that—at some point in order to be an honest 

broker in this process, the environmental community has to come 

forward and say, ‘‘We want to build this, and we think that is a 

legitimate way of producing more new net yield into the system, so 

that we can avoid some of these problems in the future.’’. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I feel very sorry for Mr. Christian. You guys 

ganged up on him. 

Being from Southern California—and yes, thank you for the remark ‘‘This is Southern California’’ or part of it; in that, we all 

must share the frustrations making CALFED—I am hearing the 

frustration from the panel of how Central Valley farmers are not 

benefiting as much from CALFED or little, for that matter. 

We don’t belittle the Central Valley’s plight. We have Superfund 

contamination in our areas that we use for drinking water. You use 

it for farming water, so you may understand. I invite the panel to 

join us in Southern California, so we can give you a tour of what 

we are faced with in Southern California. 

66

You may understand, we are here to listen to your plight. You 

need to listen to ours also, so that we can all work together. 

And while I tend to agree in many areas that we need to protect 

a lot of our species that we—thank you very much for the last tour. 

I was here about 3 weeks, a month ago. I was able to see some of 

the environmental areas and how—I toured the big Delta in a boat, 

got to a see a lot what really happens, so I understand a little bit 

more than I did maybe last year. 

I understand the need to protect it, but we were not even talking 

about how to protect the levee, so you do not have the intrusion 

of the salt water. There are many things that still have not been 

coming into the conversation about the cost and who is going to 

pay for it. Certainly the Federal Government has a great responsibility, and while we don’t want everybody, especially farmers to 

continue shouldering the cost, we need to be able to be sure that 

the state and feds work with the; everybody, again, coming to the 

table and coming to those solutions. 

If we in Southern California and, as Mr. Glover—the State Department—California Department of Water Resources, if we were 

to build recycling and desal—desalination plants, it would reduce 

our need for water from the Delta perhaps by 500,000 acre feet per 

year. If we were able to do that, would it still be necessary to build 

dams or aboveground storage? 

Mr. GLOVER. So the question is: In addition to the ground water 

facilities in Southern California, would we need to look at some 

storage facilities we are looking at part of the CALFED ROD? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Generally, yes. 

Mr. GLOVER. Well, looking at population projections over the next 

few years, I think that there is going to be a need for additional 

water, so I commend Southern California, particularly Metropolitan Water District, for their effort on recycling and ground water 

programs—so I think that is part of the package. 

I don’t think we have looked at surface storage as the answer to 

all that ails us. We think it is a complete package with the reuse 

that is happening in Southern California and more efficient use of 

the water. So, in the long term, no. I don’t see it really overcoming 

our need for additional surface storage. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I tend to agree with you. Understand, a lot of folks don’t realize that Southern California has gone 

to very high degree of recycled water usage, not only for commercial and industrial water uses, but green space, golf courses, and 

other areas. 

Certainly, something that I haven’t heard in the conversation 

here is being able to reutilize the water? And there are no new resources of water. We are still using water that we have been using 

eons ago. It is just recycled by mother earth; rainfall or whether 

it is in aquifers. The important part in our area is that our aquifers 

are unusable because of reports—you are lucky you don’t have reports in your area. Those are provided—thank you very much—by 

our Federal Government’s defense industry—the providers for that 

industry. Those are cancer-causing, and unfortunately, we have 

those besides the use of fertilizers and other farm necessities back 

in the early 1900’s, and we are now paying for that. 

67

Again, it is our drinking water; not our farming water, or not our 

industrial or commercial water. So you understand our plight is 

very different than yours. We need your understanding along that 

line. 

The other question I was going to pose possibly to Mr. Nelson is 

regarding the refuge water supply. Who should pay for the refuge—

diversion of the refuge of water? Should it be a CALFED responsibility? 

Mr. NELSON. I would like to tell you that it should be a CALFED 

responsibility, but in actuality, CVPIA is fairly clear on who should 

pay that. It is a reimbursable expenditure, the replacement of 

these supplies by Central Valley Water Users. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Any additional comments? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Nelson, in your testimony you talk about the 

loss of going through the Delta and out to the ocean. How much 

water on an annual basis do we lose that goes out to the ocean? 

Mr. NELSON. I don’t think that I can answer that. I would be 

happy to get that information, but off the top my head, I don’t 

know that there is any—I don’t know. 

Mr. NUNES. Several million acre feet? 

Mr. NELSON. I think so, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. And you talk—could you explain a little bit more 

about the—those pumping plants that you talked about there, and 

if those pumps were able to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 

how much more water we would have conveyed from the north to 

the south? 

Mr. NELSON. I certainly can answer that question on the CVP 

side. It would be in the range of 850,000 to 900,000 acre feet per 

year. 

On the state side, Tom? 

Mr. CLARK. I think the simple way to answer that question is 

just to use real time this year. If we were able to wave a magic 

wand, which Congress could do, courts could wave a magic wand, 

‘‘We don’t have this limitation at Banks anymore—paper limitation, so you accomplish your need.’’. 

Right now, this year, if you look at CVP contract south of the 

Delta, their allocation is 70 percent, so they have about 30 percent 

of their supply was stranded north of the Delta. That 30 percent 

represents about 600,000 acre feet. That 600,000 north of the Delta 

that can’t be pumped to the south. On the state project, we have 

a 90 percent allocation, so 10 percent of our water was stranded 

this year and that would be another 400,000 acre feet— 

Mr. CALVERT. If we can just interrupt for just 1 second, our court 

reporter is going to change her paper here. She is out of paper. 

[Off the record.] 

Mr. CLARK. But if you look at this year, so you have got about 

600,000 stranded—the reservoirs are full and spilling in the north, 

so there is 600,000 acre feet of CVP water that was— 

Mr. CALVERT. About 1 million acre feet— 

Mr. CLARK. About 1 million acre feet just this year that had we 

been able to pump even at just with the 8,500 Banks—getting 

800— 

Mr. CALVERT. With the conveyance systems that we have now? 

68

Mr. CLARK. And, by the way, I want you to know that this water 

could be pumped this year without having environmental impacts. 

Mr. CALVERT. I have to add to that, because I think that is very 

important that 1 million acre feet of water could have been conveyed without any noticeable environmental impact at all. 

Mr. CLARK. Right. 

Mr. CALVERT. We have lost that forever. I want to make that 

point. That is very important. 

Mr. NELSON. I may add to that not only did we lose what we 

could have delivered this year, we would have been able to pump 

additional water that would have allowed us to go into next year 

with a buffer, of which California’s water system no longer has a 

buffer that we can carry over from one wet year to the next. 

We used to have a system that could accommodate a couple of 

years of drought. We no longer have that. So in addition to losing 

1 million acre feet in real deliveries this year, we also lose delivery 

potential in future drought years. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Clark, I thank you for pointing out the magic 

wand. I know these guys are keeping this magic wand from me. I 

am still trying to find it, but I am still working on that. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will give me this magic wand 

when we get back. 

I want to go back a little bit to the Kings River, and I know that 

we don’t have any representatives here, but I would like to get 

some general comments from Mr. Watkins and Ms. Moralez on 

whether or not—and folks that know about the Kings River—

whether or not you are supportive of Rogers Crossing; if you agree 

that we should be looking at possibly building Rogers Crossing at 

Kings River also. 

Mr. Watkins? 

Mr. WATKINS. I believe that with our population growth in the 

Valley here, and the state as a whole, we are going to need new 

storage projects built; Temperance Flat, Rogers Crossing; wherever 

they make sense, that is what we should be doing. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. 

Mrs. Moralez? 

Ms. MORALEZ. We—well, I concur, with him, and further than 

that, I don’t want to comment. I just don’t want to comment on this 

at this point. 

Mr. NUNES. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Upton, do you want to comment? 

Mr. UPTON. Some of our members are also Kings River, so I 

would defer to Gary with Fresno ID, because I certainly wouldn’t 

want to answer a Kings River question without his advice. 

Mr. NUNES. Well, I didn’t want to hold a hearing without talking 

about another good possibility and a place for storage, so with that, 

I know my time has expired. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Cardoza, any final remarks? 

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I want to get back 

to the issue of credibility that I was talking about before, and we 

sort of got cutoff. 

I want to say that I feel like I am an environmentalist. I lived 

on the river in Sacramento on a boat. That was my home when I 

69

was in the legislature. I am very committed to that, but I believe 

that the environmental community is not being genuine when they 

agree to a process, they agreed to the ROD, and then when they 

get their restoration, they get their money in the water bonds—we 

have had two or three water bonds where they have substantial 

line share—yet there may be historic inequalities before, but I 

think the ledger is pretty flat now, or it has probably gone the 

other way. Now all of a sudden we are having new problems. 

We have to have it be ‘‘benign.’’ I just think that there are real 

issues, and I think they are doing a disservice both to themselves 

and the state and the people they want to serve. If we can do 

restoration—additional restoration, but we are not willing to do 

that if it continues to be one-sided, and if prior commitments aren’t 

kept. I have real concerns about that. 

I am not trying to jump on Mr. Christopher. He just happens to 

be the person from the environmental community who is here 

today. I think taken in context that there is a fair share of criticism 

that needs to be leveled about this issue, and we need to start talking very strongly about making sure that people keep their commitments. 

What I am going to ask the panel to do now is, Mr. Clark, you 

wanted to say something before about that issue, and so I will give 

you that opportunity. I would like to go quickly down the line and 

have each member of the panel tell us what three storage projects 

they would all support. 

Mr. WATKINS. I believe Farm Bureau would support Temperance 

Flat, Los Vaqueros, and, again, I haven’t looked at Rogers Crossing, but it would be one. 

Mr. CLARK. I would like to add Sykes to that. It is in Northern 

California on the west side of the, Valley, and not just for agriculture. It has opportunities because of the strategic location to 

provide Delta protection as well. 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the credibility issue. 

First of all, I want to tell you that within the environmental community there are people that stand by commitments, and people 

that we deal with regularly in terms of putting packages together, 

but I think it is important for those that step outside of the envelope of these deals and whether that is an environmental group or 

an ag group, that there has to be consequences. That is what 

CALFED was founded on, on was a package. And there are opportunities, quite frankly, that if there is a failure to balance within 

CALFED, there can be consequences. 

There is about $1 billion of environmental programs that are 

being funded through CALFED as we speak. And I will tell you, 

I for one, if the Sierra Club pursues this issue, and I would like 

Mr. Christopher to answer the question: Is the Sierra Club proposing to litigate Banks funding? If they are, I am going to be an 

advocate for withholding funding for all environmental programs 

until we balance the process. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GLOVER. I am going to dance around your question just a little bit. 

I think we knew that the CALFED process was front-loaded with 

ecosystem restoration projects, and I think that the next couple of 

70

years is very critical for the CALFED process. We are looking for 

conveyance improvements, and we are also looking at selecting a 

storage facility. So I think that this is an important process for 

CALFED, and I think one of the key components is for the Federal 

Government to be at the table and bring their checkbook. 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER. I think beyond water supply and ecosystem 

restoration, quality and Delta levee integrity, we, in Friends of the 

River, signed on to the CALFED Record of Decision, and we fully 

expect to uphold the Record of Decision as it is written. If we back 

out, understandably we lose credibility; however, that we want to 

see the Record of Decision implemented as it was written as a 

whole. It was front-loaded with ecosystem restoration, because we 

all sat down at the table, and the public decided that the state of 

our Bay-Delta estuary is—people are losing millions and millions 

of dollars each year that rely on it for their livelihood. 

So when we sit down at the table, we need to think about longterm sustainability, and the like. So if projects go forth in the 

Record of Decision, and they have been outlined in a way that 

mimics the Record of Decision, I can’t see us standing up—and we 

are not certainly going to be, ‘‘Oh, build the reservoir. We are very 

happy about it’’ and hold a big press conference, but we will support our commitments. 

Mr. NELSON. Obviously, our region is going to be focused on conveyance issues, but beyond that, the three storage projects that appear to be the most promising as benefits for CVP and other water 

users in the state are the enlargement of Shasta, Sykes Reservoir, 

and storage on the San Joaquin River, such as Temperance Flat. 

Ms. MORALEZ. Yes. I am very supportive of Temperance and 

Sykes and Temperance. 

Mr. UPTON. The three storage areas I would like to see are Temperance Flat and, second, is bringing back the Friant Water Bank, 

which is 1 million acres of prime service area. Then, we can make 

some minor amendments to the CVPIA, and go back to utilizing 

the excess and floodwaters use that as a bank, which was so effective in the past. And third, I would like to see the case put on the 

Mammoth Pool. It is a real simple project; it can give us 20,000 

acre foot of storage. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I want to thank our witness. Thank 

the audience for your hospitality. I thank the community. I want 

to thank the Heritage Complex and International Agricultural Center for hosting this hearing. I want to thank the Friant Water 

Users for providing the informational graphics and displays. 

Fugazzi’s for providing lunch. This is very important to the Congressional delegation. And the Bothoffs for providing breakfast. 

So, again, thank you for your hospitality. This is an important 

hearing. We are going off to Sacramento here shortly to listen to 

some issues regarding the Bay Delta and San Diego next week. 

Thank you, again. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

The following information was submitted for the record: 

• Basila, Jon, Basila Farms, Madera, California, Letter 

submitted for the record 

71

• Birmingham, Thomas W., General Manager/General Counsel, 

Westlands Water District, Fresno, California, Letter submitted 

for the record 

• Chedester, Steve, Executive Director, San Joaquin River 

Exchange Contractors Water Authority, Letter submitted for 

the record 

• Cunha, Manuel, Jr., President, NISEI Farmers League, Letter 

submitted for the record 

• Fox, Dennis, Bakersfield, California, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Houk, Randy, Manager, Columbia Canal Co., Statement 

submitted for the record 

• Huffman, Jared, Project Manager, San Joaquin River 

Restoration Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Letter 

submitted for the record. NOTE: Attachments have been 

retained in the Committee’s official files. 

• Kriebel, Barry F., President, Sun-Maid Growers of California, 

Letter submitted for the record

72


88057.008
73


88057.009
74


88057.010 88057.011
75


88057.012
76


88057.014
77


88057.015
78


88057.016
79


88057.017
80


88057.018
81


88057.019
(83)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON CALIFORNIA 

WATER SUPPLY 

Saturday, June 28, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Resources 

Elk Grove, California 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Elk Grove 

City Hall, 8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, California, Hon. 

Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. CALVERT. The oversight field hearing by the Subcommittee 

on water and power will come to order. If everyone will take their 

seats at the witness table, that is good. 

Before we begin, I would ask unanimous consent that Representative Wally Herger have permission to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We welcome you. We welcome the gentleman. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. You are welcome. 

Although he needs no introduction at this hearing, we are privileged also to be joined by the Chairman of the full Committee on 

Resources, Richard Pombo. And I will defer to the Chairman for his 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD POMBO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank Congressman Calvert for holding these hearings on what is 

an extremely important issue facing California. 

As many of you know, water is vital to a healthy and productive 

California. Without a sufficient water supply, all of California, from 

agriculture to urban, from environmental to industrial, will suffer. 

When farmland lies idle due to lack of water, the farmer, the 

farm worker, and the industries that supply the inputs to the farmer are negatively impacted. When cities are not able to provide 

water to industries or to the population, jobs are lost and economies are depressed. 

California has not kept up with the growing demand for water. 

We have added very little surface storage over the past 20 years, 

84

yet our needs have increased dramatically. With the ever-growing 

demand for water by urban and environmental means, we need to 

find new water and storage options. 

Trying to solve our water shortage needs by transferring water 

from agriculture to urban and environmental needs is not a solution. These transfers do not address the root of the problem, which 

is a lack of water. CALFED was put together to try and address 

many of these issues; yet after years of analyzing and spending 

hundreds of millions of dollars, one has to question, where is the 

water? 

Have we all gotten better together, as the early CALFED mantra stated? With over $249 million just in Federal money, not to mention State money, being spent over the past 4 years on ecosystem 

restoration, and only 27 million having been spent on the needs to 

study storage, one wonders, are we moving forward and getting 

better together? 

In the Delta, the heart of the water system for the State of California, many problems still exist. Water quality is an important 

issue for many who rely on the Delta for their water. Yet it has 

not really improved significantly since CALFED was established, 

and one questions if it ever will. 

Levee stability is critical not only to those who live in the Delta, 

but to the whole water supply system. Yet it still takes more 

money in studies, and mitigation in some cases, than to do the actual levee work necessary to do ensure a safe and stable levee system. Was not CALFED supposed to streamline that process? 

In order for CALFED to be successful, it must address many of 

these outstanding issues. We must have more storage, better water 

quality, oversight on how the millions of dollars are being spent, 

and coordination between the agencies to ensure a rapid permitting 

process for necessary projects. 

I again want to thank Congressman Calvert, and I look forward 

to working with him and the other members of the Committee on 

what is an extremely important issue. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Nearly everyone agrees with the need for more 

water supplies, but too little has been done to meet the growing demands for this increasingly scarce resource. 

More than 30 years have passed since California made major investments to improve its storage and conveyance systems. To vividly illustrate this point, the Department of Interior recently testified that Federal agencies have spent over 249 million in the last 

4 years on ecosystem restoration, while only a mere 27 million has 

been spent on feasibility studies for surface storage. No one denies 

the need for ecosystem restoration, but we can clearly see the lack 

of balance, especially when we have a water supply train wreck 

upon us. 

Complicating this matter is a reduction of the Colorado River delivery in California. As most of you all know, the State will have 

to reduce its dependency on the Colorado from past levels by 18 

percent. That is approximately, when the river is full, about 

85

800,000 acre-feet of water. Complying with this requirement will 

not be easy, especially in light of demands placed on the water 

supply by the reallocation of several hundred thousand acre-feet of 

contracted water supplies for the environmental needs over the 

past 10 years and a State water project conveyance system that 

does not have the ability to meet those demands. 

In an attempt to hear firsthand from those on the ground, the 

Water and Power Subcommittee is conducting a series of field hearings throughout the State over the next few days. We started this 

process this morning in Tulare, and we are here in northern California where the need for better storage conveyance is most acute. 

I note this location is particularly close to the Delta, which serves 

as the linchpin for water transfers that are based on market-based 

water transactions between private interests. 

Today, we will hear from the Federal witnesses on how our taxpayer dollars are being spent on CALFED-related objectives and 

whether there is a balance. We will also hear from experts on ways 

to improve water supply, how water supplies can be maximized by 

expanding water transfer agreements, and what efforts are under 

way to improve the movement of water through the Delta while 

protecting in-delta farming and fishery interests. 

I plan to use today’s hearing as another step toward developing 

legislation while trying to accomplish the goals we all have: more 

storage, better conveyance, with water quality protection, private 

property rights protections, a balanced CALFED, and fiscally sound 

ecosystem restoration principles. I look forward to working with my 

colleagues as the Subcommittee marches forward on this important 

legislation. 

I certainly again welcome the Chairman of the Resources Committee, my own distinguished colleagues, and other special guests 

we have invited here today. I very much look forward to what we 

can do together to work out, to manage and share this extremely 

valuable resource. 

With that, I am happy to recognize Mrs. Napolitano, the Ranking 

Democratic Member, for her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Everyone agrees with the need for more water supplies, but too little has been 

done to meet the growing demands for this increasingly scarce resource. More than 

30 years has passed since California has made any major investment to improve it’s 

storage and conveyance systems. To vividly illustrate this point, the Department of 

the Interior recently testified that Federal agencies have spent over $250 million in 

the last four years on ecosystem restoration while only a mere $27 million has been 

spent on feasibility studies for surface storage. No one denies the need for ecosystem 

restoration, but we can clearly see the lack of balance, especially when we have a 

water supply train wreck upon us. 

Complicating this matter is a reduction of Colorado River deliveries to California. 

As most of you know, the state will have to reduce its dependency on the Colorado 

River from past levels by 18%. Complying with this requirement will not be easy, 

especially in light of demands placed on the water supply by the reallocation of several hundred thousand acre feet of contracted water supplies for environmental 

needs over the past 10 years, and a State Water Project conveyance system that 

does not have the ability to meet these new demands. 

In an attempt to hear firsthand from those on the ground, the Water and Power 

Subcommittee is conducting a series of field hearings throughout the state over the 

next few days. We started this process this morning in Tulare and we are now here 

86

in northern California, where the need for better storage and conveyance is most 

acute. I note that this location is particularly close to the Delta, which serves as 

the lynchpin for water transfers that are based on market-based water transactions 

between private interests. 

Today, we will hear from Federal witnesses on how our taxpayer dollars are being 

spent on CALFED-related objectives and whether there is balance. We will also hear 

from the experts on ways to improve water supply, how water supplies can be maximized by expanding water transfer agreements, and what efforts are underway to 

improve the movement of water through the Delta while protecting in–Delta farming and fishery interests. 

I plan to use today’s hearing as another step towards developing legislation which 

tries to accomplish the goals we all have: more storage, better conveyance with 

water quality protections, private property rights protections, a balanced CALFED, 

and fiscally sound ecosystem restoration principles. I look forward to working with 

my colleagues as this Subcommittee marches forward on this important legislation. 

I welcome the Chairman of the Resources Committee, my other distinguished colleagues and the special guests we have invited here today, and I very much look 

forward to hearing how we can better work together to manage and share this valuable water resource. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with my colleague, the Chairman of the full Committee, 

in that we thank you for holding the hearings throughout the State 

of California so that we can have a better understanding of the 

California water challenges; and I appreciate the attendance of all 

the witnesses that we have had in the morning hearing and certainly here so that we can share information and be more informed 

and educated about what we need to do together. 

We did hold a Subcommittee hearing in the valley almost 2 years 

ago where we thought certainly we would have the CALFED bill 

passed at that time. But, unfortunately, it wasn’t to be. So we are 

hoping the feedback we are receiving from hearings—which is not 

only necessary, it is critical—for us to better understand the local 

problems, will determine what kind of support we will be able to 

give a particular bill that deals with the issues of California that 

helps all of California. 

I am here today to listen and to learn. This is our best opportunity to understand the critical water issues affecting our communities. They are all our communities. We must stay focused on solutions, and by working together I am sure we can be productive and 

be able to reach conclusions that will help not only California economy, California ag, and California citizens. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Herger, do you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALLY HERGER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. I do. Thank you. 

Chairman Pombo, Chairman Calvert, members of the Committee. 

Thank you for having the field hearing and thank you for allowing 

me the opportunity to participate. 

87

There may be no issue more important than the management of 

our precious water resources. With water deficits projected by the 

Department of Water Resources to reach approximately 2.4 million 

acre-feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre-feet in 

drought years by the year 2020, we clearly face a tremendous challenge. 

Mr. Chairman, CALFED originally promised a solution to that 

challenge that would allow everyone to, quote, ‘‘get well together.’’ 

unfortunately, that promise has not been fulfilled. Instead of a program for north and south, rural and urban, agriculture and industry to embrace and move forward, the existing plan would allow 

some areas to get well on the backs of others. That will only lead 

to continued gridlock. 

CALFED has turned into a massive ecosystem restoration plan 

that proposes to address the State’s dramatic water deficits situation, not by building additional infrastructure, but by acquiring 

land and water rights and taking agricultural lands out of production, causing significant impacts to the communities I represent. 

With a government body dominated by the State and Federal agencies, there is little, if any, local control or oversight. That sets a terrible and very worrisome precedent for the future management of 

our natural resources. 

I do not disagree that the State needs to share its water 

resources. To the contrary, we have to share, because this resource 

is far too limited and needs are far too great and growing. But the 

needs of the area of origin must be assured before excess water is 

permitted to flow elsewhere. 

When the problem is too many people and not enough supplies, 

the solution is to build water storage facilities that meet those 

needs. Only when there is enough water in the system will everyone truly get well together. 

CALFED has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to meet 

that challenge. Despite the investment of hundreds of millions of 

taxpayer dollars, it has only studied and restudied a limited number of storage options while our water needs have continued to 

grow. On-system reservoirs have been taken completely off the 

table, yet those facilities pose enormous potential for significant 

and cost-effective new water supplies, as well as other benefits like 

flood control and hydroelectricity. 

Our situation is so desperate and the possible impact to the economy and the public safety of another sustained drought is so serious that we simply cannot afford to take any option off the table 

because it is politically unpalatable. We should be vigorously pursuing every technically feasible opportunity. 

Congress should focus on helping California develop through a locally led process the water infrastructure that would meet the 

needs of our growing population. That will require a commitment 

to updating the Federal environmental laws and regulations that 

have gone so far off course as to prevent us from providing for 

human needs. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. And I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

88

Mr. Cardoza. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank you 

and Mr. Pombo again for holding these hearings in the valley. I 

think it is critically important that we continue to shed light on the 

issues of the day and try to work through some of these challenges. 

As I said in the hearing in Tulare earlier this morning, I think 

it is critically important that we provide new storage opportunities 

that we are able to harness water in wet times and make sure we 

have that for a very thirsty valley in southern California in dry 

times. And I am totally committed to new water sources. 

In fact, I am opposed to two new initiatives that will not consider 

moving the ball down the field, I think, that we may have had in 

the past times when, in fact, we exploited the environment for 

water production. But I think now we are getting to a point where 

we really need to focus and make sure that there is balance in the 

system, that we have new storage that couples itself with some environmental work that we have done. That is all very good, but we 

can’t get too one-sided in this process. I believe we need to make 

sure that there are conveyance opportunities to move the water 

where it needs to be when it needs to be there. 

And I am also very concerned that we have credibility in the 

process and that we don’t have a situation where one side gets 

what it wants and then takes its ball and goes home, and that we 

don’t ever move to the other part of the CALFED-ROD agreement. 

I believe that the farmers and the user community must have their 

day where we can actually resolve some of the problems, especially 

for the midpart of the valley, for the Delta, for the south part of 

the valley, for the west side; and everybody’s interests need to be 

met, because if we don’t, then we will get back and this will just 

be something that is litigated rather than legislated into compromise. 

And I think the hearing this morning was very positive, and I 

look forward to more progress this afternoon. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Next, we recognize Senator ‘‘Rico’’ Oller to testify. 

Senator, please come on up. We certainly appreciate your coming 

out to testify in front of this Committee today. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS ‘‘RICO’’ OLLER, STATE SENATOR, 

FIRST DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 

Mr. OLLER. Thank you Mr. Chairman—Mr. Chairman, members. 

Mr. CALVERT. We are trying to operate under a 5-minute rule, so 

we appreciate your coming out, testifying, and you are recognized. 

Mr. OLLER. Four score and 7 years—no. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is 3 minutes. You are doing good. 

Mr. OLLER. California’s water problems are not principally the 

result of inadequate water supplies; rather, they are the consequence of poor management and the allocation of that water 

supply. 

89

The CALFED program has historically concentrated on habitat 

preservation and restoration while ignoring new storage options. A 

budget analysis submitted by the White House Office of Management and Budget indicates that the Federal Government has spent 

27 million for water storage compared to 249 million in ecosystem 

restoration in California over Fiscal Years 2001-2003. 

It appears to me that CALFED has essentially ignored the water 

storage issue. At the same time, it has been hostile toward farming 

and the other economic interests that depend on reliable sources of 

water. 

Very unfairly, CALFED has gone out of its way to ensure that 

environmental activists are included in their decisionmaking processes, but often fails to even notify other competing parties. Consequently, very little storage yield has been generated in the last 

decade despite our growing population. Endless environmental lawsuits over storage are partly to blame, but bias toward environmental restoration efforts carried out by some Federal agency is as 

clear as Sierra snowmelt. In light of this apparent agenda, changes 

need to be made in the current scheme to bring some balance to 

CALFED. 

My primary concern is that there is currently insufficient accountability as to how taxpayers’ dollars are being spent. Taxpayers deserve to know whether their money is being spent efficiently and fairly. We desperately need some accountability. For example, the Federal purchase of endstream flows and private land 

requires public and congressional scrutiny to justify each such purchase. New storage projects must clear very high hurdles before 

construction can begin. In fact, when it comes to Federal storage 

projects, both prefeasibility and feasibility studies must be done before Congress can authorize actual construction. 

By contrast, Category 3 grants are regularly distributed to applicants without any strings attached. The billions of dollars distributed under the guise of conservation and restoration projects are 

most often received by environmental activist organizations that 

are not even obligated to report how they have spent the public’s 

money. 

Environmental restoration projects must bear more scrutiny in 

the interest of justice and taxpayer protection. We must ensure 

that these dollars are not wasted and that they are targeted toward projects that pass the common-sense test of cost-benefit analysis. For this reason, I ask the Subcommittee members to include 

provisions in the California water bill to require Federal regulators 

to submit detailed work plans to Congress on major environmental 

restoration initiatives over $50,000. Such plans should detail what 

the goals of the project are and how they will be achieved. They 

should, further, establish a timeframe for completion and a legitimate budget. California’s water users and American taxpayers deserve no less. 

What is more important, Congress must shift the focus of the 

CALFED program toward new water storage. Through blind luck 

or divine providence, California has not suffered a major multi-year 

drought for many years. During this period of relative abundance, 

the State’s population has grown rapidly, particularly in the driest 

parts of southern California. But we know from historical records 

90

that there will be dry spells ahead. We may not be able to predict 

when the next major drought will occur, but we know that it will 

inevitably exhaust our State’s water resources. Aside from the suffering this will cause in our cities, we need to consider the potential impact on agriculture, which remains California’s largest industry. To avoid such an economic disaster in the next drought, we 

need to start building dams and reservoirs now. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify before your Subcommittee, 

and I thank you for all you are doing for the people of California. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oller follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rico Oller, State Senator,

First District, State of California 

California’s water problems are not principally the result of inadequate water supplies. Rather, they are the consequence of poor management in the allocation of that 

water supply. The CALFED program has historically concentrated on habitat preservation and restoration, while ignoring new storage options. A recent budget analysis submitted in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget indicates 

that the Federal Government has spent $27 million for water storage compared to 

$249 million in ecosystem restoration in California over Fiscal Years 2001–2003. 

It appears to me that CALFED has essentially ignored the water storage issue. 

At the same time, it has been hostile toward farming and the other economic interests that depend on reliable sources of water. Very unfairly, CALFED has gone out 

if its way to ensure that environmental activists are included in their decision-making processes, but often fail to even notify other competing parties. Consequently, 

very little storage yield has been generated in the last decade in California (despite 

our growing population). Endless environmental lawsuits over storage are partly to 

blame. But the bias toward environmental restoration efforts carried out by some 

Federal agencies is as clear as Sierra snow melt. In light of this apparent agenda, 

changes need to be made in the current scheme to bring some balance to CALFED. 

My primary concern is that there is currently insufficient accountability as to how 

taxpayers’ dollars are being spent. Taxpayers deserve to know whether their money 

is being spent efficiently and fairly. We desperately need some accountability. For 

example, the Federal purchase of in-stream flows and private land requires public 

and Congressional scrutiny to justify each such purchase. New storage projects must 

clear very high hurdles before construction can begin. In fact, when it comes to 

Federal storage projects, both pre-feasibility and feasibility studies must be done before Congress can authorize actual construction. By contrast, Category 3 grants are 

regularly distributed to applicants without any strings attached. The billions of dollars distributed under the guise of conservation and restoration projects are most 

often received by environmental activist organizations that are not even obligated 

to report how they have spent the public’s money. 

Environmental restoration projects must bear more scrutiny in the interest of justice and taxpayer protection. We must ensure that these dollars are not wasted and 

that they are targeted toward projects that pass the common sense test of cost-benefit analysis. For this reason, I ask the Subcommittee members to include provisions 

in a California water bill to require Federal regulators to submit detailed work 

plans to Congress on major environmental restoration initiatives over $50,000. Such 

plans should detail what the goals of the project are and how they will be achieved. 

They should further establish a timeframe for completion and a legitimate budget. 

California’s water users and American taxpayers deserve no less. 

What is more important, Congress must shift the focus of the CALFED program 

toward new water storage. Through blind luck or divine providence, California has 

not suffered a major, multi-year drought for many years. During this period of relative abundance, the state’s population has grown rapidly, particularly in the driest 

parts of Southern California. But we all know from historical records that there will 

be dry spells ahead. We may not be able to predict when the next major drought 

will occur, but we know that it will inevitably exhaust our state’s water resources. 

Aside from the suffering this will cause in our cities, we need to consider the potential impact on agriculture (which remains California’s largest industry). To avoid 

such an economic disaster in the next drought, we need to start building dams and 

reservoirs NOW. 

91

Thank you for allowing me to testify before your Subcommittee and thank you for 

all you are doing for the people of California. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. You did that with a minute to spare. 

Mr. OLLER. I did all right? 

The only other thing that I would like to say is how much I appreciate the tenor and tone of the conversation in your opening remarks. That is refreshing, and it gives us cause for hope. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, if you would like to stay there. Does any of 

the panel have any questions? Do you have any questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No questions. Except Rico and I served in the 

State assembly a few years back. And I am glad to see that you 

are very involved— 

Mr. OLLER. Just across the aisle. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just across the aisle where we could pass little notes. 

But, Rico, it is refreshing also to hear that the State house is 

looking very seriously at the issue of water, which has not been 

taken seriously by the State itself. 

Mr. OLLER. We have been very lucky in that. Despite the fact 

that our water supply now is already insufficient, we have already 

experienced that because we haven’t had a tough drought year, let 

alone several in a row. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would hope in the future that both 

sides of the house and both chambers can sit and talk about how 

important water is to the whole State and can act as one, because 

if we don’t, other States are waiting for us to falter so they can 

take some of those funds away from California. That is how important it is and how critical it is for us to work together. 

Mr. OLLER. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. OLLER. Thank you all very much for allowing me to be here. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman. 

OK. We are merging a couple of panels together, and we are 

going to introduce everybody. 

I would like to recognize Ms. Patricia Martel, the General Manager at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Mr. Jeffrey 

Sutton, the Family Water Alliance; Mr. Greg Zlotnick, the Director 

of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors; Mr. 

Richard Forster, the Regional Council of Rural Counties—my new 

Lasik surgery works—Mr. Dennis Majors, Metropolitan Water District; John Herrick, South Delta Water Agency; Gary Bobker, the 

Bay Institute; and Nicole Van Vleck, Northern California Water 

Association. 

We thank you all for being here. We are operating under the 5-

minute rule, and it is an extremely important rule today because 

some of us have to catch airplanes a little later. So we would appreciate you staying within the 5 minutes so we have time for 

questions and answers. 

Mr. CALVERT. So first I would like to recognize Patricia Martel 

for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

92

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MARTEL, GENERAL MANAGER,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

Ms. MARTEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am, as you 

said, the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, and 

the 2.4 million Bay Area customers served by the Hetch Hetchy 

water delivery system, I would like to thank you and all the members of the Committee for field hearings in California which are examining the very critical issues that face California’s water agencies. 

The San Francisco PUC is a department of the city and county 

of San Francisco. Our utility provides water to customers in four 

counties including San Francisco, as well as San Mateo County, 

Santa Clara County, and Alameda County. We also provide wastewater and municipal power services to the city and county of San 

Francisco. We deliver 260 million gallons of water a day to 2.4 million customers. 

The SFPUC is currently providing the very initial stages of a 

major rebuild of the Hetch Hetchy water delivery system. Portions 

of our water delivery system were built in the late 1800’s and early 

1900’s. Seismic risks, which result from the fact that a majority of 

our facilities lie above or adjacent to three major earthquake faults 

in the Bay Area, require 77 separate projects to rebuild major facilities, including a major storage facility to the Calaveras Dam, 

which has been reduced to one-third of its capacity as a result of 

leakage problems. 

This is a 13-year program. The price tag is $3.6 billion. The capital improvement program of the SFPUC has been fully funded 

both by a $1.6 billion bond measure, authorized by voters in San 

Francisco last year, as well as $2 billion which will be contributed 

by our 29 wholesale customers. However, in order to take on this 

tremendous challenge of building 77 projects in 13 years, the San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission is under tremendous pressure to stay on schedule as well as to stay within budget. 

We have tremendous challenges with respect to State and local 

oversight. At the present time, we are required to report to five different State agencies and numerous local government oversight 

bodies to ensure that we make progress in implementing the improvements to the system, particularly because of the seismic risks 

and the threats to the reliability of our system. 

One area in which we anticipate delays in the potential implementation of this program successfully over 13 years will occur in 

the permitting stage. The city of San Francisco is absolutely committed to full and complete compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. At the same time, we have some concerns about delays that could result in the permitting process. Permitting agencies at the Federal level, as well as at the State level, 

are often strapped for the financial resources required for timely 

permit processing. We have met with the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

both in Washington and in Sacramento, as well as U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife. In those discussions, we have identified perhaps the 

means by which we can partner with those agencies not to in any 

way affect the review process, but to ensure that all of the 

93

resources required for timely review will be made available to those 

agencies. 

We have heard from the agencies that the need for early and 

meaningful involvement in our projects is essential. However, they 

have expressed a concern about the lack of resources they have 

available to provide for meaningful consultations at early stages in 

the environmental process. 

In an effort to ensure a timely permitting process without in any 

way compromising the objectivity of that process, the PUC is seeking authorization to fund dedicated positions at various Federal 

regulatory agencies for timely permit processing. 

Representative Nancy Pelosi has been briefed on the proposal of 

the PUC to fund these supplemental resources in the Federal agencies in light of the huge challenges we face in building those 77 

projects over 13 years. We are pleased that she has submitted legislative text to the Committee on transportation and infrastructure 

and has asked for its inclusion in this year’s legislation. It is anticipated that if we are successful in our efforts at the Federal level, 

we will eventually incorporate the same kind of resources in the 

State agencies. 

The authorization has the potential to facilitate timely implementation of the capital program, ensuring that water supplies will 

be reliably maintained and delivered to our Bay Area residences 

and businesses. It could well become a model for enhancing the 

permitting process on other large-scale public-interest projects. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martel follows:]

Statement of Patricia Martel, General Manager,

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, I am Patricia Martel, General Manger of the San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission. On behalf of the City of San Francisco and 

the 2.4 million customers in our water delivery system, I would like to thank you 

and the members of the Committee for holding field hearings in California to discuss the regional issues facing California’s water agencies. Like other parts of the 

state, Northern California finds itself confronting the challenges of aging infrastructure, water reliability, and water quality. 

The Hetch Hetchy system, which provides the principal water supply for the City 

of San Francisco and 28 wholesale customers in the Bay Area, was constructed in 

the early part of the last century. As remarkable as this system is and reliable as 

it has been, it has begun to exhibit the signs of age. Among other things, it does 

not conform to modern day seismic standards. Two studies conducted in recent 

years—the Facilities Reliability Study and the Water Supply Master Plan—concluded that a rehabilitation of the system was needed to ensure continued reliable 

service. 

In November 2002, San Francisco voters approved a bond measure to finance the 

largest renovation of a water delivery system in San Francisco history. The $3.6 billion Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains 77 projects that will repair, replace and seismically upgrade the water system’s aging pipelines and tunnels, reservoirs and dams. In addition, the projects will prepare the system for meeting 

water demand during prolonged droughts and changing water quality regulations, 

and create additional opportunities for environmental stewardship. Projects are 

prioritized based on condition, seismic risk and operational deficiencies. 

As steward of the Hetch Hetchy Project for almost 100 years, the City knows well 

that it is essential to preserve and protect the regional environment that is host to 

the project. Indeed, the City contributes significant amounts of money and water to 

preserve and enhance environmental values in its watershed and create or restore 

fish habitat on the Tuolumne River, the San Joaquin River, Alameda Creek and 

elsewhere. Further, in the wake of the adoption of the CIP, the City publicly 

94

declined to support legislation introduced into the California State Assembly which 

would have truncated the application of state environmental laws to the CIP. Clearly, the City supports the environmental process as a primary responsibility. 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission plans to develop Habitat Conservation Plans for its two Bay Area watersheds in concert with state and Federal 

environmental agencies. These plans will be designed to protect rare and valuable 

habitat such as serpentine grasslands, old growth coniferous forests, fresh and saltwater marshes and riparian woods, and to identify appropriate mitigation for potential environmental impacts of major construction, such as habitat restoration or enhancement. 

This $3.6 billion CIP is an ambitious undertaking, but the City is committed to 

working closely with Federal, state, regional and local partners to meet project 

timelines and keep project costs on track. The program is designed to maintain 

water service to all 2.4 million customers during the entire 13 year construction period. Given the size, nature and duration of the program, it is critical that construction schedules be met. Any significant delay in any one of the interrelated projects 

can have profound impacts in other areas. Since the upgrades and repairs are being 

undertaken on a functioning system, delays can further threaten the reliability of 

the system. 

The area of greatest concern with respect to project schedule relates to environmental permitting. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is absolutely 

committed to full and complete compliance with all applicable environmental laws 

and regulations. However, permitting agencies are often strapped for staff or financial resources to conduct field studies, review project alternatives and their impacts, 

or process permit applications on shortened timelines. Multiple agencies will be involved in a consultative role, thus putting a premium on the timely sharing of information and findings. Resource constraints in any one agency can significantly postpone the work product of numerous other agencies, resulting in overall permit processing delays. 

In an effort to ensure a timely permitting process without, in any way compromising the objectivity of that process, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

is proposing the establishment of a centralized office to house the staff who would 

process the permits on behalf of the various Federal agencies. This centralized office 

for a joint permitting task force would be established under the auspices of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, the agency responsible for overall agency coordination. 

The concept builds on the success of Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, whose provisions allow a public entity to reimburse the 

Corps for the costs associated with permitting. The provision is limited to public entities because it is assumed that they are motivated solely by the public interest. 

It further requires the Secretary to ensure that acceptance of the funds will not impact impartial decision-making with respect to the permits. 

This provision of WRDA has been successfully employed by the Corps on projects 

in both its Seattle and Los Angeles offices. Section 214 of WRDA expires at the end 

of this fiscal year. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is seeking to 

broaden the model established under WRDA. Under the San Francisco approach, 

the ability of public entities to reimburse the Corp of Engineers would be expanded 

to include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Services. Both of these agencies have prominent consultative roles with the Corps 

in the permitting process. 

Further, the San Francisco model would authorize the Corps to make office space 

available to representatives of these Federal agencies. By physically co-locating the 

personnel involved in permitting, the joint permitting task force would facilitate 

interagency communications and consultations. If this joint permitting task force 

lives up to its potential, it could well become a model for permitting on other large, 

public interest projects. 

In crafting this proposal the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has 

worked closely with the regional offices of the Federal agencies potentially involved. 

We have also worked closely with Congresswoman Pelosi, and we are pleased that 

she has submitted legislative text to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and asked for its inclusion in this year’s WRDA legislation. 

We are encouraged by the positive feedback we have received from the Federal 

agencies when we discussed this concept with them. From their viewpoint, delays 

occur when Federal agencies are consulted late in the planning process, and asked 

to approve a permit after the project description and preferred alternative have already been selected. The agencies prefer to have early and meaningful involvement 

before the project has already been defined, which the joint permitting taskforce 

model promotes. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission welcomes early agency 

involvement in its projects, and is willing to be a productive partner by contributing 

95

the resources necessary to support the agencies’ efficient coordination and processing of permits. 

As the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission moves forward with the restoration and modernization of the Hetch Hetchy system, this joint permitting task force 

has the potential to significantly facilitate implementation of the CIP, ensuring that 

water supplies will be maintained to Bay Area residents and businesses. More importantly, this provision can establish a model for other large capital projects in 

California. 

On behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this proposal. We look forward to working with your office on 

this matter. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Jeffrey Sutton, Family Water Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY SUTTON, FAMILY WATER ALLIANCE 

Mr. SUTTON. Chairman Calvert, members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of Family Water Alliance. I am going to echo a lot of the sentiments already heard from the Committee itself, so I will try and sum up 

as best I can. 

CALFED poses both challenges and opportunities. The challenge 

of weighing, balancing, and attempting to resolve conflicts over 

competing demands for our natural resource is a hurdle not easily 

overcome. The opportunities presented by CALFED are the ability 

to overcome these challenges. Working to find solutions to the 

CALFED program goals is vital to the health and welfare of the entire State of California. 

As we have seen in the Sacramento Valley, the CALFED program has made great strides in terms of pursuing ecosystem restoration. On the other hand, many of the complaints from the agricultural sector and rural communities in regard to the CALFED 

program is how it has proceeded in an unbalanced fashion. The 

program is focused primarily on ecosystem restoration and environmental goals, ignoring the adverse effects associated with the conversion of agricultural land to habitat, forcing rural communities to 

carry the environmental burden. 

Most troubling is the fact that CALFED has completely failed to 

adequately address the need for increased water storage. As we 

heard before, California is growing at the rate of 600,000 people 

per year. With it, the demand for consumptive uses grows. The environmental demand for water is also increasing greatly. Meanwhile, we are being curtailed from our use of surplus Colorado 

River water. 

Conservation, recycling, desalination, and some voluntary water 

transfers will serve to satiate some of this increased demand; however, it is clear that we must increase surface storage to address 

the increased demands for water supply. If we don’t begin to address this immediately, we will find ourselves in yet another crisis, 

much like the energy crisis, leading to further bad decisions to the 

detriment of the State. 

Turning to the issue of the land acquisitions, it is something 

Family Water Alliance has been extremely involved in through the 

process the Sacramento River Conservation Area. While these acquisitions may provide some benefit to the environment, it solely 

places the burdens associated therewith on the rural communities. 

The burdens include the following: 

96

When privately owned agricultural land is acquired by the State 

and/or Federal Government, it is taken off the county tax rolls, reducing the tax base of the county where the acquired land is located. In lieu, taxes are seldom paid in full, and this dynamic 

causes incredible strain on rural communities. One example is, 

there is over $600,000 for in-lieu taxes owed to Glenn County. Due 

to financial constraints, they are being forced to lay off 36 teachers 

right now. That is just one example. 

Further, taking agricultural land out of production is the equivalent of closing our factories in rural communities. The negative economic impacts are felt by agribusinesses, businesses unaffiliated 

with agriculture due to the fact that revenues are not multiplied 

throughout the local economy, the number of jobs are reduced, all 

of this placing further strain, including the resources available to 

county government. 

As agricultural land is converted to habitat under the theory of 

a ‘‘willing seller,’’ it intentionally attracts a variety of species in 

areas that have been historically used for agriculture. In numerous 

cases, this causes great damage and loss of compensation to farmers as a result of crop predation. These individual landowners, who 

have been the unfortunate and unwilling recipients of third-party 

impacts associated with land acquisitions, oftentimes then become 

the so-called ‘‘willing sellers’’ as a result of the pressures and profit 

losses associated with neighboring habitat. 

Along the same lines, the stated goal of many of the land acquisition programs is the promulgation of endangered species. Again, 

the unwilling and unfortunate neighboring landowners are exposed 

to regulations, sanctions, and prosecution pursuant to the ESA. 

These adverse consequences create more so-called ‘‘willing sellers.’’ 

Moreover, much of the land acquisition and ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento Valley is occurring within the flood control 

system. Filling the area between the levees of the Sacramento 

River and bypasses with riparian habitat serves to reduce the flood 

capacity of a system that is already being strained, compromising 

our safety and the protection our ag land was put in place for. 

Family Water Alliance has participated extensively with the 

SRCAF, which promotes the creation of a corridor of riparian habitat to find workable solutions to the problems discussed above in 

an effort to protect agriculture, the economic foundation of our 

rural community. However, we have found the agencies not too 

complying. 

I see I am running out of time. Let me sum up real quickly. 

One of the specific solution principles articulated in the CALFED 

Record of Decision is the requirement that any CALFED solution 

must have no significant, redirected, negative impacts. To date, 

CALFED is in breach of that self-directed mandate. Family Water 

Alliance respectfully requests that the CALFED refocus its efforts 

to proceed in a balanced fashion, working specifically to address 

the problem of redirected impacts on rural agricultural communities associated with land acquisitions and to address the need for 

increased water storage. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sutton follows:]

97

Statement of Jeffrey P. Sutton, Executive Director,

Family Water Alliance 

Question Presented: 

Every region in the State recognizes that CALFED poses challenges and opportunities. As part of your testimony, please explain some of the opportunities that 

CALFED provides, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Federal land 

acquisition and easements. 

Response: 

On behalf of myself and Family Water Alliance, I want to begin by expressing my 

appreciation to this Committee for inviting us to share our thoughts in regard to 

the CALFED Program. Family Water Alliance (FWA) is a nonprofit corporation 

whose mission is education and public outreach, providing a strong grassroots voice 

for the protection of private property rights and the continued economic viability of 

agricultural in the Central Valley. 

Family Water Alliance simultaneously promotes responsible environmentalism 

based on sound science and common sense, as illustrated by our Sacramento River 

Small Diversion Fish Screen Program. This program is largely funded by grants 

from state and Federal agencies, including CALFED, that have formed a cooperative 

partnership with FWA and the individual landowners to prevent the mortality of 

juvenile fish species. This program serves to protect our fishery resources and permits farmers to continue to irrigate crops without the fear of being in violation of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Family Water Alliance is extremely proud of the 

success this program has had to date. NOAA Fisheries, a partner and supporter of 

this Program wrote the following: ‘‘Dollar for dollar, FWA has perhaps been the 

most cost-effective recipient of CALFED funds to date.’’ FWA’s Fish Screen Program 

is a great example of a win-win, balanced solution that the CALFED Program has 

facilitated. 

As stated in the Question Presented, CALFED does pose both challenges and opportunities. The challenge of weighing, balancing, and attempting to resolve conflicts over competing demands for our natural resources is a hurdle not easily overcome. The opportunities presented by CALFED are the ability to overcome these 

challenges. Working to find solutions to the CALFED Program goals are vital to the 

health and welfare of the entire State of California. 

On the other hand, many of the complaints from the agricultural sector in regard 

to the CALFED Program is how it has proceeded in an unbalanced fashion. The 

CALFED Program has focused primarily on ecosystem restoration, ignoring the adverse effects associated with the conversion of agricultural land to habitat, forcing 

rural communities to carry the environmental burden, which I will discuss in more 

detail later. 

Most troubling is the fact that CALFED has completely failed to adequately address the need for increased water storage. Instead, the current trend has apparently shifted to focusing on the creation of a water market, taking more agricultural 

land out of production via fallowing programs to free up water for urban consumption. This may be the short-term solution to satisfy immediate demands for water, 

however it should not be viewed as the long-term solution. The sale of water from 

the agricultural sector carries with it many negative economic impacts, again causing further stress to the already depleted revenues of rural counties, negatively affecting businesses, employment, and various county social programs. 

California is growing at the rate of 600,000 people per year, the demand for water 

for consumptive uses and the environment will continue to increase. Conservation, 

recycling, desalination, and some voluntary water transfers will serve to satiate 

some of this increased demand. However, it is clear that we must increase the 

amount of storage capacity in California to boost water supply and to create the 

flexibility needed to address these competing demands. 

The time for prolonged discussion is over, the time for fighting over projects is 

over, the time for study upon study is over. We need the leadership of this country 

and this state to immediately realize the incredible need for increased water storage 

capacity in California, some hard decisions need to be made, and construction of the 

selected projects needs to be initiated. If we don’t address this immediately, we will 

find ourselves in yet another crisis much like the energy crisis, leading to further 

bad decisions, to the detriment of all. CALFED has the opportunity to address the 

need for increased water storage, it states this very goal as one of its aims. However, to date, we have seen little progress made to find long-term remedies to this 

problem. 

Turning to the issue of Federal land acquisitions and easement programs. Family 

Water Alliance is very concerned about the impacts associated with the acquisition 

98

of agricultural land for the purpose of converting it to habitat. While these acquisitions may provide some benefit to the environment, it solely places the burden associated therewith on rural communities. Some say that these acquisitions are the will 

of the people as evidenced by the recent passing of Proposition 50 in California, 

which allocates substantial funds for state acquisitions. However, it should be noted 

that Proposition 50 was opposed by an overwhelming majority in the Sacramento 

Valley where much of the land acquisition is taking place. 

The negative impacts associated with land acquisitions are as follows: 

1. When privately owned agricultural land is acquired by the state and/or Federal 

Government, it is taken off the tax rolls, reducing the tax base of the county 

where the acquired land is located. In lieu taxes are supposed to be paid to 

address this shortfall in county revenues, however, these payments from the 

state and Federal Government are not mandatory, and are often underpaid or 

not funded at all. This dynamic can cause incredible strain on a rural county 

where agriculture is the primary industry. For example, Glenn County is currently owed over 600,000 for in lieu tax payments that have not been forthcoming, yet due to budget constraints the County has been forced to lay off 

over 30 teachers, illustrating the strain land acquisitions have on rural counties ability to perform required services. 

2. Further, taking agricultural land out of production is the equivalent of closing 

our factories in rural counties. The negative economic impacts are felt by agribusinesses, businesses unaffiliated with agricultural due to the fact that revenues are not multiplied throughout the local economy, the number of jobs are 

reduced, placing further strain and depleting the resources available to county 

government. 

3. As agricultural land is converted to habitat under the theory of a ‘‘willing seller’’, it intentionally attracts a variety of species into areas that have historically been used for agriculture. In numerous cases, this has caused great damage and loss of anticipated compensation to individual landowners as a result 

of crop predation. These individual landowners, who have been the unfortunate 

and unwilling recipients of the third party impacts associated with land acquisitions, oftentimes then become the so-called ‘‘willing sellers as a result of the 

pressures and profit losses associated with neighboring habitat. 

4. Along the same lines, the stated goal of many of the land acquisition programs 

is the promulgation of endangered species. Again, the unwilling and unfortunate neighboring landowners are then exposed to regulation, sanctions, and 

prosecution pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. To address these issues, 

landowners are often required to forego certain ordinary cultural farming practices, they can be submitted to obtrusive scrutiny by agencies, potential loss 

of productive farmland, and increased operating costs. These adverse consequences serve to create more so-called ‘‘willing sellers, causing further third 

party impacts to the local economy and county government. 

5. Moreover, much of the land acquisition and ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento Valley is occurring within the Flood Control System. Filling the area 

between the levees of the Sacramento River and the bypasses with riparian 

habitat serves to reduce the flood capacity of a system that is already being 

strained. Projects are currently assessed on a case by case basis, but the cumulative impacts on the flood carrying capacity of these projects is being ignored, 

compromising the safety of the communities along the River, and neglecting to 

protect the productive agricultural land which the flood system was erected to 

protect. 

Family Water Alliance has participated extensively with the Sacramento River 

Conservation Area Forum, which promotes the creation of a corridor of riparian 

habitat along the Sacramento River, to find workable solutions to the problems discussed above in an effort to protect agriculture, the economic foundation of our rural 

counties. We have proposed safeguards such as barriers and buffer zones to minimize and/or negate the problems stemming from neighboring habitat. We have advocated for an expedited grievance procedure to address these problems, and a mitigation fund to reimburse those that have been negatively impacted. We have studied 

and promoted the concept of crediting the SRCAF with mitigation credits to alleviate the pressure of the ESA on landowners who wish to continue to farm their land. 

We have pushed for a study of the cumulative impacts of ecosystem restoration 

within our flood control system, to assure we are not compromising the safety of the 

residents of the Sacramento Valley. We have advocated that all grants for land acquisitions have certain funds set aside to mitigate for the negative consequences 

which result from the creation of habitat and to guarantee the full payment of in 

lieu taxes by the agencies. Family Water Alliance has seen first hand the negative 

99

impacts associated with land acquisition programs, and have participated in an effort to find ways to address these concerns in a proactive manner, to no avail. 

One of the specific ‘‘Solution Principles articulated in the CALFED Record of Decision (at Page 9) is the requirement that any CALFED solution must ‘‘have no significant redirected negative impacts. To date, CALFED is in breach of that self-directed mandate. Family Water Alliance respectfully requests that CALFED refocus 

its efforts to proceed in a balanced fashion, working specifically to address the problem of redirected impacts on rural agricultural communities associated with land acquisitions and the need for increased water storage. Thank You. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Greg Zlotnick. 

Good to see you again, Greg. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. ZLOTNICK, DIRECTOR, SANTA 

CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, members of the Subcommittee, Chairman Pombo, and staff. My name is Greg Zlotnick. 

I am an elected member of the Board of Santa Clara Valley Water 

District. Thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you for the 

invitation to appear before you today. I have submitted written testimony that provides significantly more detail than just the few 

highlights that I will mention during my limited remarks. 

By way of background, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is 

the primary water resource agency for the 1.8 million residents of 

Santa Clara County, home of the Silicon Valley. What was once 

called the ‘‘Valley of Heart’s Delight’’ also still produces some $300 

million in annual agricultural output on more than 250,000 acres 

of crop and rangeland. 

We are a unique agency in many ways, but pertinent to today’s 

hearing is the fact that we are the only agency in California that 

is both a State water project and Central Valley project contractor. 

As you can imagine, that puts us squarely in the middle of delta 

issues, and is why we believe a successful CALFED program is critical to our region. We often sit at the fulcrum of policy concerns involving either or both projects. We are also the only major urban 

water agency in California that has responsibility for local watershed and flood management. 

I have been asked to focus on our experiences with multi-agency 

permitting issues. Regulatory agencies have different missions, 

which can lead to inconsistent direction to an applicant or outright 

conflict among the agencies over priorities. We have addressed this 

issue on large projects by taking the initiative to seek to work with 

State and Federal agencies in collaborative or group forums rather 

than individually, and together we develop clear, comprehensive requirements rather than piecemeal and/or redundant ones. 

For example, we worked with seven agencies to obtain the necessary permits for our unique and valuable 10-year routine stream 

maintenance program, which has been touted by Craig Manson, 

the Assistant Secretary of Interior for the Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks as a national model. Consequently, our staff has already 

begun in-channel routine maintenance work this season, fully 2 

months prior to historic start dates. Since we do not have a secured 

annual permit with all the delay and costs of the regulatory groups 

100

associated with it, we are achieving more for our constituents and 

paying less for unproductive paperwork. 

Another example of a successful collaborative approach is our 

fisheries and aquatic habitat collaborative effort, or FAHCE. 

FAHCE was a proactive response to litigation implicating our 

water rights. We developed a transparent, technically rigorous, 

science-based assessment of what the true opportunities were and 

how much flow from our reservations was truly necessary. Participants, which included the agencies, the plaintiffs, and other local 

stakeholders, create a high degree of trust and partnership, resulting in unanimous support for the final agreement initialed last 

month. 

The lesson to be learned from the FAHCE and other experiences 

include: 

First, agree to jointly identify the problems. Often the presumption of a shared-problem definition proves false. So, take the time 

to get on the same page at the outset. 

Second, agree to use a science-based approach to making decisions. Participants must be willing to consider all the scientific 

data available and have the patience to fill data gaps, if possible, 

before imposing best-guess prescriptions. 

Finally, identify and evaluate solutions together. 

Another strategy is incentivizing good environmental practices by 

streamlining the regulatory process for applications with a track 

record of proven environmental stewardship. Too often the perception is, agencies seem to assume the worst of project proponents, 

and regulatory demands reflect the one-size-fits-all command and 

control bias. We firmly believe the regulatory process works best 

when local agencies are given maximum flexibility in developing 

and implementing needs to meet desired and required ends. 

Another important issue we all face is working to protect groundwater as a key water resource. In January of this year, we learned 

of significant perchlorate contamination in the southern part of our 

county, impacting hundreds of private groundwater wells, partly in 

Chairman Pombo’s district. A 7-1/2-mile plume of perchlorate has 

been identified. 

To date, the district has spent in the neighborhood of $1 million 

for bottled water and well testing and staff time, and we have committed to spend another quarter of a million dollars to enable the 

city of Morgan Hill to install treatment technology to the public 

water supply well. We are looking to the State and Federal Governments to ensure that the parties responsible for this contamination 

pay for the damage they have caused and reimburse us sooner 

rather than later. 

The same should be true for any case of contamination, and I 

would like to thank you Chairman Pombo for the support that you 

provide as we serve to serve our mutual constituents. 

With respect to CALFED, generally we are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you are again working on a western water measure that 

includes funding for the CALFED program so the Federal Government will be the partner we need. 

An important component of such legislation, which will help us 

to better ensure we can serve those who recently lost their wells 

to perchlorate as well as improve the viability for our entire county, 

101

is the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project. This is 

a project that will not only benefit us from the San Felipe end of 

the CVP, but has the potential to create approximately 200,000 

acre-feet of south-of-delta surface storage. As in the past, we look 

forward to working with you as your partner in that critical legislative effort. 

Ultimately, in an effort to improve relationships with regulators 

as local agency board leaders, there must be a sustained policylevel desire to change the dynamic and shift this confrontation and 

mistrust to true partnerships with the State and Federal agencies. 

I am proud that my board colleagues and I have provided that direction in our district. Working collaboratively and not as antagonists saves money and improves the environment. Our efforts in 

Santa Clara County illustrate that when we keep our eye on the 

ball, we can actually be very successful as a team comprised of the 

regulators and the regulated. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and for 

your collective interest and leadership on these issues. I would be 

happy to respond to questions at the appropriate time. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zlotnick follows:]

Statement of Gregory A. Zlotnick, Board Member,

Santa Clara Valley Water District 

Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, members of the Subcommittee and staff. My 

name is Greg Zlotnick and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Santa 

Clara Valley Water District (District). I want to thank you for holding this hearing 

today on the CALFED Bay–Delta Program and ways to improve water supplies in 

California. 

The region my agency serves, the Silicon Valley, relies on the Bay–Delta for about 

half of its water supplies. In very dry years, Bay–Delta supplies can account for up 

to 90 percent of the water used in Santa Clara County. Given this, you can understand why the quality and reliability of these supplies is so important to the residents and businesses in our region, and why we have such a huge stake in the success of the CALFED Program. 

I was asked to speak today about the experiences my agency has had working 

with multiple Federal agencies with regard to permitting of water resource and environmental restoration projects and how those experiences can be applied to other 

local projects and the broader CALFED Program. Before I start, I want to state up 

front that some of our most successful projects have resulted from the involvement 

of multiple Federal and state agencies. As a result of our efforts we have found that, 

over time, success breeds confidence, positive relationships and support of local 

agency programs. But working with multiple agencies can also create significant 

challenges. 

Today I’m going to talk about three strategies that can be used to address those 

challenges: multi-agency collaboration; flexibility; and a regulatory framework that 

includes incentives and rewards as well as consequences. These strategies can be 

applied at the local level and at the broader CALFED Program level to decrease permitting times and project costs without sacrificing, and perhaps even improving, 

protection for the environment. 

For those of you not familiar with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, we are 

the primary water resources agency for the more than 1.8 million residents of Santa 

Clara County, California. Our duties include providing wholesale water supplies to 

13 local retail water agencies; protecting county residents and businesses from the 

devastating effects of floods; and serving as environmental steward for the county’s 

creeks and streams, underground aquifers and district-built reservoirs. 

We are unique in the San Francisco Bay Area in that about half the water used 

in our service area comes from local sources, primarily from our local reservoirs and 

groundwater basins. The Santa Clara Valley has the only sizable remaining drinking water basin in the Bay Area. Recycled and conserved water makes up a small 

but increasing portion of our total water supply and is a critical component of our 

102

plan to meet future demands. We’re also looking at desalinated seawater as a potential future water supply. 

Santa Clara County receives its imported water through the Delta from the State 

Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project. We receive our State Water 

Project supplies through the South Bay Aqueduct and our Central Valley Project 

supplies from the San Luis Reservoir. Some county residents also receive imported 

water from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy system. Although we do not participate 

in the management of the Hetch Hetchy system, the system does provide some or 

all of the drinking water for 15 to 20 percent of our population, and we include that 

supply in our planning efforts. 

In carrying out our water resource management duties, we often must work with 

multiple Federal and state regulatory agencies with overlapping authority over the 

same resources. This is especially true for our flood protection and stream maintenance projects. For example, we worked with seven agencies to obtain the necessary 

permits for our unique and valuable 10-year routine stream maintenance program: 

the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service and, on the state side, the Department of Fish and Game, California Environmental Protection Agency, and both the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards. We also work with multiple state and 

Federal agencies on issues related to operation of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project. 

I mentioned before that working with multiple agencies can pose unique challenges. Often agencies have different perspectives about the best way to protect natural resources, different sets of authorities and missions, and different views about 

which resource should be given priority. Addressing these conflicting demands can 

increase the length and cost of the permitting process and significantly increase 

project costs, often without any appreciable increase in the level of environmental 

protection. 

One way we’ve addressed this issue is by working with state and Federal agencies 

in a collaborative or group forum, rather than individually. This provides the agencies an opportunity to hear and understand the issues and concerns of the other 

resource agencies and helps reduce the opportunity for conflicting or duplicative permit requirements. I should note that the District is a full participant in this multiagency forum, not an outside observer. The multi-agency forum is similar in concept 

to the Operations Group formed after the signing of the Bay–Delta Accord to allow 

stakeholders and Federal and state agency staff to discuss Delta operations. 

We think the multi-agency collaborative approach helps us achieve better results 

for the environment, at a lower cost. One example of a successful collaborative approach in our county is our Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort 

(FAHCE). FAHCE emerged from a 1996 challenge to the District’s water rights in 

the County’s three largest watersheds that drain to San Francisco Bay. When faced 

with a legal complaint from environmental organizations that our water supply operations did not leave enough water to meet the needs of local fisheries, we could 

have dug in our heels. Instead we proactively responded by joining with the state 

and Federal resource agencies, local environmental groups and the complainant’s 

representatives to develop a plan that balanced and integrated all the beneficial 

uses of the local watersheds. 

Participants in the FAHCE process, which included the District, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and 

Game, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of San Jose, 

the Natural Heritage Institute (representing the complainant) and other non-governmental stakeholders, agreed to use a science-based approach to resolve the complaint. Existing data was evaluated and a study plan was developed to fill gaps in 

information necessary to construct robust and enduring solutions. All told we spent 

more than three years developing and analyzing scientific data, and another two 

years identifying and evaluating potential solutions. 

By jointly developing the body of technical data and openly evaluating and developing alternatives, participants created a high degree of trust and partnership. The 

agreement reached in the end balances and integrates drinking water, flood protection, recreation and fisheries—all beneficial uses of the local water resources. We 

credit the use of a jointly-developed science-based approach with the unanimous 

support the final agreement achieved. 

Another key feature of the FAHCE is a commitment to adaptive management, 

that is, a commitment to adjust and fine tune the plan as we go along. By setting 

up a process to monitor and adjust over time, all parties are more comfortable accepting conclusions. This approach will also help us target resources at those actions 

that appear most likely to provide the biggest near-term environmental benefits and 

long-term ecological health for the lowest cost in dollars and water resources. 

103

The FAHCE is one example of the benefits of a multi-agency collaborative process. 

By working with the regulatory agencies and other stakeholders in a collaborative 

manner, we were able to develop a plan that better secures our water rights, protects endangered species, and provides other important benefits to our region and 

the larger Bay–Delta system. 

We employed a similar collaborative process for our Guadalupe River flood control 

project, a multi-million dollar project that protects the heart of Silicon Valley, San 

Jose, and a project that our partner, the Corps of Engineers, points to as a national 

model for multi-purpose flood control projects. Bringing in the resource agencies 

when an impasse was reached to help identify resources needs, then redesign the 

project, was a new approach, but this allowed each of the agencies to have ownership in the project. 

The CALFED Program is itself embarking on a process to allow stakeholders and 

agencies to discuss issues and jointly explore solutions to issues with crosscutting 

implications. We would encourage the agencies and stakeholders involved in that 

process to employ the lessons we learned from our FAHCE process. 

First, agree to jointly identify the problems. One of the first things we discovered 

when we sat down at the table during the FAHCE process was that we didn’t define 

the problem the same way. Defining the problem jointly required that all parties 

be willing to look at the full range of scientific data available and fill in data gaps 

where needed. Only then were we ready to agree on the scope and causes of the 

problem and begin developing and evaluating solutions. 

Second, agree to use a science-based approach to making decisions. Participants 

must be willing to consider all the scientific data available, including data that has 

been developed since the adoption of the Bay–Delta Accord and establishment of the 

‘‘environmental baseline’’ in the CALFED Record of Decision. Only by doing so can 

we target our limited resources where they will provide the greatest benefit. 

Finally, commit to identify and evaluate solutions together. Remember that collaboration is not the same thing as negotiation. Collaboration requires working together to identify the best solution that meets all parties’ interests. By working together collaboratively, a solution can be developed that protects and restores the environment while also meeting the needs of Californians for safe and reliable water 

supplies at a reasonable cost. 

Multi-agency collaboration is a powerful tool, but it can also be time-consuming 

and expensive, and it is not appropriate for every project. The permitting process 

for more routine projects can be facilitated through the development of clear policies 

and guidelines, and standardized training, for agency staff reviewing projects. The 

current process allows agency staff wide latitude to demand changes to projects or 

even to stop them. It sometimes seems that these demands or regulatory actions are 

based more on opinion than scientific evidence. Changes in agency staff can also 

lead to new demands for changes and result in delays to project schedules and cost 

increases. The consistent application of policies and guidelines could help take the 

surprise out of the permitting process. We would also encourage the use of general 

permits for similar types of projects, such as the Corps of Engineers Nationwide 

Permit 31. General permits, if used as intended by Congress, could produce substantial savings for the CALFED Program. 

The Corps of Engineers has had in place for a number of years the concept and 

practice of a general permit, which takes several forms: regional, statewide and nationwide. The idea behind these permits is to cover either those activities that are 

similar in nature and cause only minimal individual and cumulative environmental 

impacts, or those that are developed to reduce duplication with another governmental regulatory agency and the impacts are minimal. There is no reason why 

these general permits should not apply to CALFED. Another key recommendation 

for streamlining the regulatory process is to name a point person from each agency, 

with a high level of authority in the regulatory process, to serve as a collaborative 

representative to keep projects moving. 

By proposing the development of clear policies and procedures, I do not mean to 

suggest that my agency supports the use of prescriptive regulations. On the contrary, we believe that the regulatory process works best when local agencies are 

given maximum flexibility in developing and implementing the means to meet the 

desired ends. We prefer regulations and guidance that are descriptive in the ends 

to be achieved, not prescriptive in the means to be employed. While Silicon Valley 

has suffered in the economic downturn, it remains a cradle of innovation and creativity, so provide us the ability to apply that creativity in our valley and, similarly, 

throughout the nation. 

The FAHCE process I discussed earlier is one example of a process in which flexibility by the regulatory agencies led to a better solution. Our Municipal Stormwater 

Management Program is another example. In the early 1990’s, before the 

104

Environmental Protection Agency’s stormwater regulations were released, my agency led a proactive and collaborative effort to organize a regional stormwater management program. As an early program, we were given greater flexibility to develop 

tools and solutions suited for our region. The partnerships we formed with Federal, 

state and local agencies and the private sector might not have been possible under 

a rigid, one-size-fits-all regulatory mandate. The degree of flexibility and local control we were granted by the regulatory agencies was a key factor in the success of 

our program and why it was selected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as the national first place program for an outstanding municipal 

stormwater management program. 

Let me provide another example of a situation that could be addressed through 

the more flexible application of regulatory requirements. We frequently find when 

dealing with multiple agencies that each agency imposes different monitoring requirements for its own purposes. What results is a fragmented approach to monitoring, when what is really needed is a more comprehensive watershed-based approach. By allowing local agencies the flexibility to apply resources where they will 

produce the most benefit, for example as part of a comprehensive monitoring program or to monitor constituents that represent a significant overall threat to the 

watershed, regulatory agencies can increase the level of environmental benefit for 

a given investment. 

It is really not surprising that giving local agencies greater flexibility in determining how to meet the desired ends can result in better outcomes. After all, agencies like ours have invested substantial resources in understanding how our local 

watersheds function. Federal agency staff, on the other hand, review projects in 

many watersheds and thus cannot develop the same knowledge of local conditions 

as local agency staff. Allowing local agencies the time needed to develop appropriate 

solutions for their watersheds pays dividends for the environment in the form of better projects, and ultimately furthers the Federal agencies’ ability to achieve their 

missions. 

This brings me to the third strategy that we would like to see both Federal and 

state agencies apply more frequently and that is recognizing and thus incentivizing 

good environmental practices by streamlining the regulatory process for applicants 

with a track record of proven environmental stewardship. Federal and state agencies should ‘‘reward’’ agencies like ours and others that have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to sound watershed management and environmental protection, not 

punish us by trying to raise the mitigation bar on projects that are environmentally 

benign or even intended to enhance the environment. 

One way to provide incentives for agencies that demonstrate a commitment to 

good watershed management is by providing those agencies greater flexibility in determining how to best meet the described regulatory ends. Another is to start the 

project review process from the assumption that these agencies’ permit applications 

are complete and the projects appropriately defined. It simply does not make sense 

to spend the same amount of time and resources reviewing the projects of those 

agencies that have already demonstrated their commitment to watershed protection 

as it does to review the projects of agencies that have not made this commitment. 

Perhaps an approach to recognize and honor this commitment would be a pre-qualification list developed by the resource agencies. If a local agency has a history of 

positive achievement and a recognized commitment to stewardship, it should be able 

to move though the permitting process more quickly. 

Water conservation is another example of an area where agencies should be rewarded for good behavior, not punished with a one-size-fits-all regulatory solution. 

Residents and businesses in the most populous Bay Area counties are using less 

water today than in 1986, even though our population has increased by almost 17 

percent. In our service area, the typical resident used 20 percent less water in 2000 

than in 1986. Accomplishments in Southern California are similarly impressive. 

Water conservation programs in the Bay Area include rebates for ultra-low flow 

toilets, indoor and outdoor residential and commercial water use efficiency surveys, 

rebates for efficient clothes washing machines and dishwashers, public outreach and 

education programs and many other proactive programs. By 2020, District supported water conservation programs are expected to save 50,000 acre-feet a year—

enough water to meet the needs of 100,000 households. 

Despite this record of success, some participants in the CALFED process remain 

convinced of the need for more prescriptive water conservation requirements. Surely 

this is not the area where Federal or state agencies should concentrate their regulatory efforts. Far more can be accomplished in this area through the provision of 

grants and other incentives than through the use of a regulatory stick. Agencies 

that are actively trying to do the right thing, in this case conserve water, should 

be encouraged through the provisions of grants to help leverage local funds. 

105

It was in part through the availability of such financial incentives that our agency 

and other agencies and stakeholder groups in our region were able to develop a 

draft Watershed Action Plan and individual stream stewardship plans under the 

Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative. The participation of state and 

Federal agency staff in the process has also served as a form of incentive, as their 

participation ensures that the measures we identify under the Initiative are consistent with the interests of the state and Federal agencies and can move through 

the permitting process more quickly. 

Of course we recognize that carrots alone are not always enough. There must be 

real consequences for behavior that results in harm to our environment and water 

resources. This is particularly true in the case of groundwater contamination. 

Groundwater contamination is an issue of serious and growing concern for our county and the entire country, especially with rapidly improving detection technology 

and the increasing use of chemicals in our society. 

In January of this year we learned of a significant perchlorate contamination 

issue in the southern part of our county, located partly in Chairman Pombo’s District. To date, a seven-and-a-half mile plume of perchlorate has been identified originating from a site that was used by the Olin Corporation to manufacture highway 

flares. The area involved is served solely by public and private wells, and the infrastructure is not readily available to provide centralized treatment or alternative 

water supplies. My agency, upon learning of this problem, immediately arranged for 

free well testing and the delivery of bottled water to concerned residents. Today we 

are still providing bottled water to residents of the affected area. 

The District has so far spent in the neighborhood of a million dollars for bottled 

water, well testing, and staff time, and we’ve committed to spend another quarter 

million dollars to enable Morgan Hill to install treatment on their Tenant Avenue 

well. We are looking to the state and Federal Governments to ensure that the parties responsible for groundwater contamination face real consequences and pay for 

the damage they’ve caused, while we cope with the realities of hundreds of homeowners with contaminated wells. 

We are hoping to address the perchlorate issue, with Federal assistance, in the 

near term through a combination of well head treatment, point-of-use treatment and 

other recognized treatment alternatives, although more work is needed to determine 

whether that is feasible. We are working to keep the groundwater basin usable 

through treatment, but over the longer term, the groundwater basin cleanup must 

occur. One alternative at the present point is to build facilities to deliver imported water 

to the affected area. Whether the final alternative is a groundwater treatment system or additional water from the Central Valley Project, the San Luis Reservoir remains a vital component of our water supply system. This further underscores our 

need to address the San Luis Reservoir low point problem, and other issues that 

threaten the quality and reliability of our existing Bay–Delta supplies. 

Unfortunately our situation is not unique. Throughout California our groundwater 

supplies are at risk from perchlorate, MTBE and other contaminants. Imagine the 

added stress the loss of these supplies could place on the Bay–Delta and Colorado 

River systems. 

That’s why we were pleased to hear, Mr. Chairman, that you are considering introducing a western water measure that includes funding for the CALFED Program, 

including above ground storage and conveyance improvements such as the San Luis 

Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project, and a competitive grant program to help 

local agencies deal with problems such as groundwater contamination and serve the 

growing water needs of California and the West. As you are well aware, in California and in other states with interconnected water supply systems, few water 

supply issues are purely local problems. The efforts that local agencies make to protect and improve local supplies are an integral part of the larger solution to problems affecting the Bay–Delta system and other river systems throughout the West. 

There is no question that local Board leadership is required to foster true partnerships with the state and Federal agencies and I am proud that my Board colleagues 

join me in providing that policy guidance at our agency. To move toward a proactive 

posture, and to put forth the initial offer of trust that must be reciprocated by the 

agencies, is a risk that is a bit more than a small leap. When presented with such 

an overture, the agencies must take advantage of it to further their mission and 

success, and not rebuff it. 

Working collaboratively and not as antagonists saves money and improves the environment and that’s what should be the goal. Indeed the resource agencies as organs of government need to remember they work for the same people as my agency, 

and that is a perspective that is often lost or seemingly absent. Our efforts in Santa 

Clara County illustrate that when we all remember that and keep our eye on the 

106

ball, so to speak, we can be very successful as a team comprised of the regulators 

and the regulated. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting 

me to speak today about some of the challenges that exist when dealing with multiple regulatory agencies. We believe, based on the successes we’ve had in our county, that incorporating multi-agency collaboration, greater flexibility, and incentives, 

rewards and consequences into the regulatory process can truly improve the permitting process at the local level and in the broader CALFED Program. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Richard Forster, Regional Council of Rural 

Counties. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD FORSTER, CHAIR, WATER 

COMMITTEE, REGIONAL COUNCIL OF RURAL COUNTIES 

Mr. FORSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Richard Forster; I serve as the County 

Supervisor in Amador County and as Chair of the Water Committee for the Regional Council of Rural Counties, better known as 

RCRC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of RCRC to the Subcommittee. 

RCRC is an organization of 29 rural California counties. We have 

145 county elected supervisors in our membership. Our member 

county areas include the San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Trinity watersheds, as well as Imperial County. Collectively, our counties are 

also the source areas for the San Francisco-Bay Delta’s water. Over 

80 percent of the water for the Delta comes from our membership 

area. 

RCRC member counties comprise just over 40 percent of the 

State’s land mass and hold significant groundwater resources over 

which the counties exercise regulatory authority. Our local governments are required by State law to develop comprehensive general 

plans to sustain our environment and economies while providing 

for additional growth. Implicit in this charge is the need for adequate, high-quality, reliable, affordable water supplies. 

California’s regions are highly diverse not only from the standpoint of rainfall and soils, but also in terms of water management 

options. The State of California has recognized this by dividing the 

State into 10 separate hydrologic regions which are utilized in the 

State Water Plan, as well as in the State Regional Water Quality 

Control Boards. Each of these regions has its own unique challenges and opportunities in terms of achieving new water supplies 

and improved water quality. 

There are regional approaches we know will work to achieve 

water supply and reliability gains within our membership area. 

These concepts have been discussed and examined as part of the 

State Water Plan update. One of the precepts of the new California 

Water Plan is to move the State toward regional self-sufficiency. 

These approaches include repairs to leaking infrastructure and conveyance systems, improvements to water treatment and wastewater treatment plants, reoperation of our existing reservoirs, increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs, and many more. What 

we most lack is funding to carry out these projects. 

Any serious effort to solve the water challenge before us is predicated on adequate funding and effective decisionmaking. Any 

107

decisionmaking structure for water supply and/or water management program should reflect the diversity of the State’s hydrologic 

regions and maximize the knowledge and leadership skills within 

those regions. The decisionmaking structure should be comprised of 

a comprehensive membership which includes local elected officials 

from the affected areas, who are answerable to an electorate and 

who are responsible by State law for managing the land resources 

which give rise to the water supply. 

Along those lines, our member counties would like to see greater 

attention given to existing land use plans when restoration programs are developed in conjunction with water supply and management programs. For well over 100 years, California statutes have 

recognized counties’ authority over land use planning decisions. We 

are charged with developing comprehensive general land use and 

resource plans, zoning ordinances and a process to approve orderly 

growth while protecting the environment and providing for a viable, vibrant economy. Therefore, from a county planning perspective, it is important for restoration programs involving land acquisition to recognize the existing land use template and respect a 

county’s statutory authority over land use decisions with limited 

State or Federal involvement. In addition, the fiscal impact to 

county coffers when those lands are no longer in private ownership 

should be underwritten by the acquiring entity, and appropriate 

funding should be made available to operate and manage these 

lands. 

Moving on to the question of water rights, California has a diverse and, some would say, complex set of water laws. These laws 

are predicated on a priority system based on the time of filing for 

those rights. Source areas have been provided assurance that their 

long-term needs for water supply will be met through ‘‘area of origin’’ protection, also viewed by the State to be of senior priority. In 

contrast, both the State’s California Water Project and the Federal 

Central Valley Project are junior water rights holders. 

We do not believe it would be prudent or effective to institute a 

program that overturns the fundamental assurances that exist in 

California’s water laws. To the extent any program elevates one set 

of water users—for example, junior rights holders over senior—that 

water program would destabilize and perhaps overturn the State’s 

water law priorities. Therefore, Federal involvement and setting 

priorities for California water should be consistent with State 

water law. Providing assurances for supply to junior rights holders 

is a slippery slope we urge you not to start down. Let California 

water law decide the priorities of use in this State. 

An additional threat to the stability afforded by California’s existing water rights structure is the lack of assurance given to upstream diverters with respect to the implementation of the ESA 

under the current CALFED operating environment. Our counties 

are concerned that the Sacramento and San Joaquin watershed 

users should be required to provide any additional water needed to 

meet fisheries and/or water quality objectives. 

And checking my time, I am over, so I will conclude by: 

Mr. Chairman and members, while we recognize that a coordinated multi-goal approach to managing the State’s water can be 

beneficial, there is a need for some modifications to make it work 

108

for Californians. We look forward to working with you and the 

California delegation on this endeavor, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forster follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard Forster, Chair,

Water Committee, Regional Council of Rural Counties 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Richard Forster. I serve as a County Supervisor in Amador County 

and as Chair of the Water Committee for the Regional Council of Rural Counties 

(RCRC). Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of RCRC to 

the Subcommittee regarding the challenge of increasing California’s water supply, 

reliability, availability and quality. 

RCRC is an organization of twenty nine rural California Counties. We have one 

hundred and forty-five elected County Supervisors in our membership. Our member 

county areas include the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Trinity watersheds as well 

as Imperial County. Collectively, our counties are also the ‘‘source’’ areas for the San 

Francisco Bay–Delta’s water. Over eighty percent of the water for the Delta comes 

from our membership area. RCRC member counties comprise just over 40% of the 

State’s land mass and hold significant ground water resources, over which the Counties exercise regulatory authority. Our local governments are required by State law 

to develop comprehensive General Plans to sustain our environment and economies 

while providing for additional growth. Implicit in this charge is the need for adequate, high quality, reliable, affordable water supplies. 

California’s regions are highly diverse not only from the stand point of rainfall 

and soils, but also in terms of water management options. The State of California 

has recognized this by dividing the State into 10 separate hydrologic regions which 

are utilized in the State Water Plan as well as in its Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Each of those regions has its own unique challenges and opportunities 

in terms of achieving new water supplies and improved water quality. 

There are regional approaches we know will work to achieve water supply and 

reliability gains within our membership area. These concepts have been discussed 

and examined as part of the State Water Plan update. One of the precepts of the 

new California Water Plan is to move the State towards regional self-sufficiency. 

These approaches include: repairs to leaking infrastructure and conveyance systems; 

improvements to water treatment and waste water treatment plants; reoperation of 

our existing reservoirs; increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs; upper to lower 

watershed restoration projects; improved, locally controlled, groundwater monitoring 

and management; and new storage projects. What we most lack is funding to carry 

out these projects. Any serious effort to solve the water challenges before us is 

predicated on adequate funding and effective decision making. 

Any decision-making structure for a water supply and/or water management program should reflect the diversity of the State’s hydrologic regions and maximize the 

knowledge and leadership skills within the regions. The decision making structure 

should be comprised of a comprehensive membership which includes local elected officials from the affected areas who are answerable to an electorate and who are responsible, by state law, for managing the land resources which give rise to this 

water supply. 

Along those lines, our member counties would like to see greater attention given 

to existing land use plans when restoration programs are developed in conjunction 

with water supply and management programs. For well over 100 years, California 

statutes have recognized counties’ authority over land use planning decisions. We 

are charged with developing comprehensive General Land Use and Resource Plans, 

zoning ordinances and a process to approve orderly growth, while protecting the environment and providing for a viable, vibrant economy. Therefore, from a county 

planning perspective, it is important for restoration programs involving land acquisition to recognize the existing land use template and respect a county’s statutory 

authority over land use decisions with limited state or Federal involvement. In addition, the fiscal impact to county coffers when these lands are no longer in private 

ownership should be underwritten by the acquiring entity and appropriate funding 

should be made available to operate and manage these lands. 

Moving on to the question of water rights—California has a diverse and some 

would say complex set of water laws. These laws are predicated on a priority system 

based on the time of filing for those rights (i.e. early diverters of surface waters typically have superior standing over later diverters and/or contractors). In addition, 

109

‘‘source areas’’ have been provided assurance that their long term needs for a water 

supply will be met through ‘‘area of origin’’ protection—also viewed by the State to 

be of senior priority. In contrast, both the state’s California Water Project (CWP) 

and the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) are junior rights holders. 

We do not believe it would be prudent or effective to institute a program that 

overturns the fundamental assurances that exist in California’s water laws. To the 

extent any program elevates one set of users needs—for example, junior rights holders such as the State CWP or Federal CVP above more senior rights holders—that 

water Program would destabilize and perhaps over turn the State’s water law priorities. Therefore, Federal involvement in setting priorities for California water should 

be consistent with state water law. Providing assurances for supply to junior rights 

holders is a slippery slope we urge you not to start down. Let California water law 

decide the priorities of use in this State. 

An additional threat to the stability afforded by California’s existing water rights 

structure is the lack of assurance given to upstream diverters with respect to the 

implementation of the ESA, under the current CALFED operating environment. Our 

counties are concerned that the Sacramento and San Joaquin watershed users 

would be required to provide any additional water needed to meet fisheries and/or 

water quality objectives. 

A related concern is associated with the ‘‘commoditization’’ of water through water 

transfers. A water transfer program that is dominated by one ‘‘buyer’’, that gives 

consideration or priority to one use over another or that results in long-term, substantial shifts in the culture of a community is problematic for rural counties. We 

agree that short term water transfers can play a crucial role in California’s water 

supply management program and we are willing to participate in a fair solutionoriented process. However, over-reliance on transfers poses challenges to local governments as they struggle with the long term social and economic implications of 

such activities. 

Mr. Chairman and members, while we recognize that a coordinated, multi-goal 

approach to managing the state’s water can be beneficial, there’s a need for some 

modifications to ‘‘make it work’’ for all Californians. We look forward to working 

with you and the California delegation on this endeavor. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be very happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. CALVERT. John Herrick of the Delta Water Agency. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HERRICK, GENERAL COUNSEL AND 

MANAGER, SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY 

Mr. HERRICK. Thank you, Chairman Calvert and Chairman 

Pombo, Committee members, and Representative Herger. 

My name is John Herrick. I am general counsel for the South 

Delta Water Agency, which sounds more important than I am. But 

our agency is uniquely situated to be involved in the problems that 

CALFED is attempting to address. We are the end spot for the two 

river systems in the valley in California, and also the position 

where the export pumps are located, so we feel the effects of everything that goes on. 

CALFED was based on two premises, among others, which include to fix the Delta and for everybody to get better together. Getting better together is anathema to my clients, as we are what we 

call ‘‘innocent third parties’’ to the operations of the State and Federal projects. My constituents are harmed every year due to those 

projects’ operations. We think that the approach of the State and 

Federal Governments should be, first, to mitigate the harm they 

are causing to people not involved in the projects and then seek 

ways to help California’s water quality and quantity. 

There is a program that is proposed that didn’t have anything to 

do with CALFED, but it is now under CALFED’s umbrella, which 

institutes barriers in the south Delta which goes a long way to improve the water quality and quantities to my clients. However, that 

110

program is now in a project whose description is ‘‘Increase exports 

as the State pumps up to 8500 CSF a day.’’ you will note that the 

project description is not ‘‘to improve or mitigate the existing 

harm.’’ so we will have to see how that pans out. 

It is a very real threat that we embark upon, increasing that 

which causes the harm before we have cured the harm. And as an 

example, one of the diverters in my area whose land is 5 feet below 

water level—below sea level, excuse me—and operates a siphon 

called me up last week and said his siphon won’t work. Now, think 

about that. Someone’s whose land is below sea level is unable to 

divert from the Delta. Those problems should be solved before we 

embark upon any other action which may increase that harm. 

Fixing the Delta also should include repairing the San Joaquin 

River. The southern part of the Delta certainly bears the impacts 

of the poor quality of water and lack of flow coming down the San 

Joaquin River. Those are a result of the Federal project operations. 

We think that the Federal Government should take a hand in that 

and, in conjunction with the State legislature, embark upon a program to improve, restore, whatever you want to call it, but to better the San Joaquin. That helps innumerable parties, including 

Delta interests, and it also helps fix the Delta. 

Each year of below-normal conditions, they release upwards of 

100,000 acre-feet of pure water in the Stanislaus to dilute the waters of the San Joaquin. Now, my clients rely upon that, so we like 

that; but that is 100,000 acre-feet of water we release to reduce the 

concentrations of high salt. That is not right. 

The second issue I would like to touch on deals with how 

CALFED runs into conflict with California law, and was touched 

upon by the representative from the Regional Council of Rural 

Counties. Whenever you protect one group of users, and that is the 

exporters—and exporters need water, we don’t deny that—but 

whenever you protect them with a principle of no net loss, that is 

going to run into conflict with the existing California water right 

priority system, of which they are the junior members, generally. 

And the example of that is the environmental water account. The 

State and Federal Governments go purchase water in northern 

California to make up for lost exports. 

As the representative also said earlier, we have laws in California which protect those upstream users to the surface supply of 

water. They are supposed to get a larger percentage of that water 

supply as they grow. But CALFED’s policy now is to purchase that 

surface water and encourage them to move to groundwater, the 

exact opposite of the statutes. Now, that may work in the short 

term, it may not, but it can’t be a long-term policy if the State’s 

laws say in the future, the north will use more of the stored water, 

the surface water, not less. 

And that brings us to the final issue I would like to touch upon, 

which everybody has mentioned and which is absolutely correct. 

We need more water. We don’t necessarily need more storage, we 

need more yield. There has to be a greater pie to divide up. Nobody 

should be preferred under the program. It is the water of the State, 

it is not anybody’s individual water. The State and Federal Government should ensure or try to ensure the pie is large enough for all 

beneficial users, because when it isn’t, that is when we have the 

111

conflicts; that is when southern California needs to have additional 

exports, notwithstanding what those exports do to people. If we 

have enough water, then we don’t have those conflicts. 

Now, that is a monumental task, but it is one that can be moved 

toward, I will say. And we agree that each area should move toward self-sufficiency. It doesn’t mean they will be self-sufficient in 

a year or 2 or 10 years, but they need to move toward that. And 

that is where California’s and the Federal Government’s assistance 

should flow to help them do that. 

Thank you very much. And I will pass the mike on to Mr. Majors. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herrick follows:]

Statement of John Herrick, General Counsel and Manager,

South Delta Water Agency 

My name is John Herrick. I am general counsel and manager of the South Delta 

Water Agency. Our agency was created by the California Legislature to protect the 

quantity and quality of water in the South Delta for all beneficial uses. Our area 

is in a unique position in that it receives not only the discharges from all upstream 

users, but it is the location where the State and Federal projects draw water from 

the Delta for export to water deficient areas. 

I understand this hearing is to examine the CALFED Program and ways to increase and improve water supply, reliability, availability, and quality. With regards 

to CALFED, that combination of agencies has its origins in negotiations between export contractors (those who rely on the State and Federal Projects for water), governmental agencies, and some environmental interests. All interests were not invited to the original discussions and negotiations. In 1994, environmental needs, especially those of the Endangered Species Act, increased, and there was a corresponding decrease in exports. It is exports which significantly impact fishery populations, and therefore exports were being decreased to address fisheries. To address 

this tension, those parties agreed to certain actions to provide for fisheries and also 

to maintain exports. 

As you might imagine, when one group’s water supply is protected (the export 

contractors), other groups’ supplies are at risk. CALFED was born out of this concept. Hence, water supply, reliability, and quality as set forth in the CALFED 

Record of Decision, or ROD, translate into supply, reliability, and quality for exports. This is a false priority and threatens existing California water rights. 

California water law has a priority system with riparian and pre–1914 users at 

the top and other permitted and licensed users according to their original date of 

filing an application for a permit. The export projects of the State and Federal Governments are generally the lowest priority. In spite of this, the State and Federal 

Governments (including the regulatory agencies) agreed to a ‘‘no net loss of exports’’ 

principle even if ESA, water quality or third-party impacts suggested less exports. 

California law also sets up area of origin and Delta priorities under Water Code 

Sections 11460 et seq. and 12200 et seq. These statutes protect the upstream areas 

allowing them to recover and use water previously developed by the projects for export. To put it another way, the future development of upstream areas is supposed 

to be protected by their ability to get back water previously exported. To the contrary though, CALFED promotes the sale of upstream water supplies (both surface 

and ground water) for export. This will necessarily result in the continued reliance 

on this water by the exporters. When the next drought occurs, or when the upstream areas eventually seek to expand and grow and thus need the water, the conflict between the north and south will be of epic proportions. 

The answer of course is greater supply for all uses; something CALFED simply 

does not do. CALFED mandates increased exports over time, but only seeks to 

‘‘study’’ new storage projects. Note the use of the word ‘‘storage.’’ The CALFED parties purposely use this word rather than ‘‘new supply’’ or ‘‘yield.’’ Yield is additional 

supply; storage rarely is. Of all the storage projects to be studied by CALFED, the 

amount of new yield is insignificant compared to California’s existing and future 

needs. Notwithstanding the eloquent language in the CALFED ROD, it is simply 

redividing the same old pie; only this time, there is an open preference given to export interests by the State and Federal agencies. 

112

CALFED is supposed to ‘‘fix the Delta.’’ The South Delta Water Agency is a good 

example of what is actually occurring. The CVP decreased the flow in the San Joaquin River by an average annual amount of 345,000 acre-feet per year from April 

through September; with no provision for downstream Delta users who depended 

upon that supply. The Federal project also delivers water to the west side of the 

San Joaquin Valley without having built a Valley drain. The result? Up to one million tons of salt is delivered to the Valley with up to 400,000 tons draining back 

into the San Joaquin River in concentrations well above the downstream salinity 

standard. 

The State and Federal export pumps also lower the water levels in the South 

Delta to the point where local diversions are impaired or prevented. Some channels 

run dry and circulation is radically altered allowing the high salt concentrations 

from upstream to further concentrate. 

In addition, the Bureau through CALFED decided to reallocate New Melones 

water for fishery purposes. New Melones is on the Stanislaus River, a tributary of 

the San Joaquin. Under its permits, the Bureau must release water from New 

Melones to maintain water quality on the San Joaquin River in recognition of its 

culpability for polluting the San Joaquin. The CALFED process, however, reallocated New Melones water for fisheries such that there is now less water to meet 

the salinity standard, a pre-existing permit condition of the Bureau. 

Fixing the Delta would seem to suggest these issues be squarely addressed. Unfortunately, CALFED does not because it is geared to improving exports. 

To avoid the issue of first addressing current impacts, CALFED was founded in 

the idea of everyone ‘‘getting better together.’’ Besides not being implemented in 

practice, such a concept ignores basic fairness, water rights, and tort law. The South 

Delta has been adversely impacted by the export projects for over thirty years. Instead of seeking to mitigate the existing harm to innocent third parties, CALFED 

promises to ‘‘improve’’ water levels and quality in the South Delta while at the same 

time embarking upon increased exports. 

It should be the policy of both the State and Federal Governments to first mitigate the damage they cause before they propose to cause more damage or figure out 

how to mitigate an additional amount. The parties who say that such an approach 

is divisive are the ones who want to better their positions before the South Delta 

problems are solved. 

At this time, there is an ongoing temporary barrier program and a proposed permanent barrier program to address many of the concerns and issues related to the 

South Delta. That program will hopefully be successful, and we continue to work 

with the California Department of Water Resources to secure adequate protections 

for the area. If asked, I can more fully explain the barrier program; how it works, 

its shortcomings, and how CALFED affects it. 

What is needed to assist all beneficial users of water in California is legislative 

action to force CALFED or its constituent agencies to take actions in addition to the 

ROD and to limit some things the agencies currently do. I suggest the following: 

1. There should be both a State and Federal statute directing the restoration of 

the San Joaquin River. The USBR has seriously impacted the quality and quantity 

of water in that River to the detriment of many interests. Without such legislative 

directive, the regulatory agencies will continue on their never-ending process which 

to date has accomplished very little. 

2. The adverse impacts of the export projects should be mitigated before any additional exports are approved or implemented. Mitigation of existing impacts should 

not be combined with a project to increase exports, as history shows us that the increase in exports occurs and the mitigation may not. 

3. Standards in the South Delta should be implemented which would require decreased exports when water levels fall below certain heights in designated places. 

Reliance on mitigation can prove ill-founded, but mandatory standards protecting 

water levels could be enforced. 

4. Transfers of water should not be part of any long-term program to increase supplies to other portions of the State. Transfers should be limited only to emergencies 

and those instances where the seller decreases its consumptive use (or decreases the 

amount of water previously lost to beneficial uses). There can be no worse policy 

for the State of California than to have distant areas rely upon transfers of water 

when the total supply remains static. 

5. New supplies should be developed to address the current and projected water 

shortages in California. Each area of the State should move towards self-sufficiency 

so that the growth and economic prosperity of any region is not dependent upon a 

supply of water which may be needed in other parts of the State. Both State and 

Federal funds should be allocated for local projects to develop such new supplies. 

113

6. Groundwater should not be mined to support growth in any portion of the 

State. California’s groundwater is steadily declining and is the reservoir upon which 

we rely in times of drought. Use of groundwater especially under conjunctive use 

programs should certainly be encouraged. However, encouraging the sale of surface 

supplies and forcing sellers to turn to groundwater reserves is at best a short sided 

policy. 

7. Area of origin laws and the Delta Protection Act statutes should be fully enforced and the involved State and Federal agencies should actively work to implement them not oppose compliance with these statutes until brought into Court. 

California’s water problems are only just beginning. If we don’t protect innocent 

third parties and fisheries from the effects of our complex system which redistributes the water of the State of California, we can never begin to solve the problem 

of future needs. Those future needs loom on the horizon. If we don’t begin now to 

develop more supply, future generations will be limited by our shortsightedness. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, we are going to recognize Dennis Majors 

from the Metropolitan Water District. And he asked for some more 

time to go through the plumbing of the Delta, and we are happy 

to grant that. Mr. Majors is also known as the gentleman who built 

the Diamond Valley Reservoir, the last reservoir to be built in the 

State of California of any size. So the gentleman is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS G. MAJORS, ENGINEERING PROGRAM 

MANAGER, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MAJORS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Committee. I am an Engineering Program Manager with Metropolitan Water District, and for 2 years I also was the Delta Implementation Manager for CALFED. 

I have the sense you are not hearing me. 

Mr. CALVERT. Maybe move that mike up closer to you. 

Mr. MAJORS. OK. 

I gained quite a bit of knowledge regarding the Delta system and 

how water is moved from north to south through that system. The 

Through Delta Plan is CALFED’s preferred alternative from the 

Record of Decision and Final EIR/EIS, and it was issued in August 

of 2000. 

I want you to know that the Metropolitan Water District strongly 

supports and is dedicated to the success of the Through Delta Plan. 

We will take all appropriate actions to assure its implementation. 

However, I should say that, equally important, we are committed 

to the avoidance of adverse impacts to Delta farming or other interests, including effects to Delta water supply and water quality. I 

will focus my remarks today substantially on that issue. 

I don’t know if you have the written testimony, but under Tab 

1 of my written testimony I showed a number of Through Delta Improvements which convey water from the Sacramento River to the 

Delta and southerly export facilities. 

North Delta facilities include, for example, flow improvements of 

the Delta Cross Channel, flood control enlargements to the north 

Delta channels. Throughout the Delta, it includes levee improvements, maintenance dredging, and ecosystem restoration. 

The south Delta facilities include dredging of the channels, construction of permanent operable barriers to protect farming interests, water supply and water quality, and it also includes cost-effective fisheries measures. 

114

Dredging and permanent operable barriers in the south Delta are 

CALFED’s first implementation package. I want to say that they 

are highly cost-effective, they can be accomplished in the near 

term, and are funded now for construction. So we need to move 

ahead. 

They include also a careful plan to protect Delta interests from 

the effects of implementation. In the north Delta, studies will conclude how best to operate Delta Cross Channel and other conveyance features to enhance water quality in the Delta while protecting fish and, potentially, Mr. Chairman, keeping the Delta 

Cross Channel open longer periods of time to improve our water 

quality in the Delta. 

Flood control improvements downstream, which also help water 

quality, are planned; and in my testimony I show a tab that shows 

various concepts of levee improvements that substantially improve 

the integrity of the entire Delta system. These are also funded 

through Prop 50 and through the State subventions program, so 

there is a funding source. 

Plans for achieving 8,500 cubic feet per second capacity in the 

south Delta are accompanied by additional dredging of Old River 

near the Delta, levee improvements, and also the installation of 

these operable barriers. The barriers, along with selective deepening of diversions and even additional portable pumping when 

water supply is very lean, particularly on the San Joaquin, are part 

of that kind of a concept, so that there will not be adverse effects 

to Delta farming interests either from a water quality or water 

supply perspective. 

Also, we show that those barriers have the potential—not the potential; what they actually do is that they accept water at high 

tide, so that these high levels of water can be maintained for water 

supply for the farmers while export pumping is going on. So there 

are protections there as well. 

Within the testimony, it also shows that barriers, by regulating 

them in the proper way, making small releases, can also improve 

water quality in the Delta region; and that is something that is 

critically important to all of us. Funds for this work are also in 

place in the form of bond issues. 

While permanent barriers can capture more water at high tide 

than the temporary barriers, I should point out that since 1991, for 

over 12 years, there has been a system of temporary barriers in the 

south Delta so that water can be trapped at high tide; later on, 

when pumping takes place or at low tide, south Delta farmers have 

their water supply needs met. 

South Delta pumping at 8,500 cubic feet per second is planned 

to begin under the more limited capabilities of the temporary barriers while fully protecting south Delta agricultural diversion capability. This means these operations will not occur as frequently as 

when we have the permanent barriers. 

And what I would like to emphasize is, it is very important and 

I would say urgent to get these barriers, these permanent barriers 

in place as soon as possible. As we read the current schedules, the 

EIR for the south Delta is certified in next year and the permanent 

operable barriers are not in place until 2008, and we consider that 

unacceptable. We think we can move quicker than that. 

115

So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, moving water through the 

Delta to export facilities comes with an commitment to protect 

Delta interests with a vital stake in water supply quality and levee 

system integrity. This is a commitment, as I say, that is integral 

with any plan to increase exports. 

And I would be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Majors follows:]

Statement of Dennis G. Majors, Engineering Program Manager,

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Thank you Chairman Calvert. I am currently an Engineering Program Manager 

with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, with responsibilities 

for guiding implementation of the CALFED Program. For two years, from 2000 to 

2002, I was also CALFED’s Delta Implementation Manager, where I gained detailed 

knowledge of the concept and operations involved in moving water south, across the 

Delta’s system of channels and rivers, to the Federal and state water export facilities. The attached Disclosure Statement provides other supporting information on 

my qualifications relevant to this testimony. 

Summary and Conclusions 

Under CALFED, the concept of conveying water across the Delta to export facilities is called the Through Delta Plan. This is CALFED’s preferred alternative, contained in the CALFED Bay Delta Program’s Record of Decision and Final EIR/EIS, 

issued in August 2000. The avoidance of adverse effects to Delta farming or other 

interests is inherent in this Plan. 

The conveyance of water through the Delta to export facilities in the south comes 

with a commitment to protect Delta interests with a vital stake in its water supply 

and water quality to maintain the integrity of their operations. CALFED will implement the Through Delta Plan through planned flood control improvements in the 

north Delta, ongoing levee and dredging programs throughout the Delta, dredging 

in the south Delta, and the use of permanent operable barriers in the south Delta 

to protect the region’s water quality and water supply. Appropriate habitat improvements will be undertaken to maintain the integrity of the Delta system as a whole 

and a balanced approach to CALFED implementation. 

Metropolitan Water District strongly supports and is dedicated to the success of 

the Through Delta Plan and will take all appropriate actions to ensure its implementation. This Plan includes improvements in the north and south Delta, which 

are summarized in the numbered items below and illustrated on Tab 1. Items 4 

through 9 of this list constitute the first major implementation package under the 

CALFED program, and will substantially improve water supply reliability for Southern California and other water users south of the Delta. These measures are highly 

cost effective, can be accomplished in the near term, and include a careful plan to 

protect all Delta interests during their implementation and operation. 

1. flow improvements at and near Delta Cross Channel, 

2. flood control enlargements to north Delta channels, 

3. cost effective measures to improve fish salvage in the south Delta, 

4. ongoing levee improvements throughout the Delta, 

5. dredging of channels in the south Delta, 

6. maintenance dredging in various parts of the Delta to maintain channel 

capacity, 

7. the construction of permanent operable barriers in the south Delta to maintain 

water quality and water supply to farming interests, 

8. complementary ecosystem restoration measures, and 

9. increased pumping capacity at south Delta export facilities to 8500 cubic feet 

per second. 

I will review these improvements and show how they allow the conveyance of 

water toward export facilities, while protecting Delta interests integrally linked to 

its water supply, water quality and the integrity of the system as a whole. 

North Delta Improvements 

In the north Delta, the Plan consists of several actions to address flood control, 

ecosystem, water quality, fisheries, and water supply reliability concerns. These include: 

1. dredging and setback levees on the north and south forks of the Mokelumne 

River, 

116

2. flood control and habitat restoration on McCormack–Williamson Tract, 

3. restoring habitat along Georgiana Slough, 

4. modifying Delta Cross Channel operations, and 

5. the feasibility of constructing an additional diversion to the Delta from the Sacramento River. 

At Tab 1, you will see these listed as Flood Control Improvements and Flow Improvements. I will highlight those facilities that most particularly improve flow capacity, channel integrity and water quality in the Delta. 

Delta Cross Channel and the Through Delta Facility 

Near the Delta Cross Channel in the north Delta, studies will show how to operate the Cross Channel, along with other conveyance features in that area, to enhance water quality in the Delta while protecting fish—most particularly the downstream migration of salmon smolts and the upstream migration of salmon adults. 

We think CALFED can meet these goals in a complimentary manner in order to 

keep the Cross Channel open more of the year. The Cross Channel is now generally 

closed in the spring, open in the summer and fall, and partially open at other times 

of the year. 

We will determine how flow splits east from the Sacramento River into the Cross 

Channel and Georgiana Slough, or west from the Sacramento River into Sutter and 

Steamboat Sloughs, will let us best maintain higher water quality in the Delta and 

keep fish away from areas where they could more easily be diverted from the Sacramento River. Tab 1 shows the locations of these river and channel systems in the 

north Delta. 

We expect these answers late next year, with facility improvements to follow. 

Flood Control 

CALFED is planning flood control measures in the north Delta, which will result 

in a final planning document next year. The measures will substantially improve 

the flood carrying capacity of north Delta channels, such as the north and south 

forks of the Mokelumne River that lead into the Delta. This is done through combinations of dredging, levee raising, and levee set backs to gain the needed flood 

capacity. As an example, Tab 2 highlights the concept of a set back levee, which 

has the added benefit of encouraging habitat growth (graphic 1). It also shows how 

dredged materials removed from the channel can be placed on the backside of the 

levees to strengthen their integrity (graphic 2). These actions complement the movement of water through the Delta and improve water quality, and substantially improve the integrity of channel and levee systems to the benefit of farming and other 

interests. 

Levees Improvements 

The Department of Water Resources has an active program to maintain and improve levees throughout the Delta on a continuous basis. This program is supported 

by state legislation that also requires net habitat enhancement with the improvement of any levee site. Levee improvements are thereby combined with unique habitat restoration opportunities. Levee integrity is enhanced, for example, by dredging 

material from the adjacent channel and placing dredged materials behind the levees 

for stability. Intermediate benches can also be provided on the waterside of the levees for greater stability. Habitat growth is encouraged in benched areas for restoration purposes and wave energy dissipation. Tab 2 further highlights the levee integrity improvements and habitat enhancement opportunities afforded by the levees 

program. Funding for such work is provided through the state subventions program 

on an annual basis, and through state bond issues, such as the recently passed 

Proposition 50. An active levees program is clearly complementary to the Through 

Delta Plan, proving added integrity to the conveyance of waters to export facilities, 

while guarding against catastrophic levee failures, causing severe damage to adjacent properties, and salinity intrusion and water quality degradation in the central 

Delta and at export facilities. 

South Delta Improvements 

Plans for achieving a capacity of 8,500 cubic feet per second at Banks Pumping 

Plant in the south Delta would be accompanied by additional dredging on Old River, 

the installation of permanent operable barriers across Middle and Old Rivers and 

Grant Line Canal, the placement of a fish barrier at the head of Old River, as well 

as ongoing levee improvements. In addition, where found that barriers may not adequately protect farming interests from supply inadequacies, a program to selectively 

deepen diversions and provide portable pumps would be employed, upstream and 

downstream of the barriers. The barriers and selective diversion deepening and 

portable pump systems give the assurance that, as pumping takes place at export 

117

facilities, there will not be adverse effects to water levels and or water quality of 

Delta farming interests. Channel integrity is better maintained, and fish are diverted further away from pumping operations. Funds are now in place through state 

bond issues to make these improvements. 

Dredging 

Dredging the Old River north of the export pumps is necessary to avoid sediment 

movement and channel scouring during peak diversions. Here, levee stability is enhanced by only removing material in the center of the channel and by maintaining 

flatter side slopes on the channel. Dredge materials would be placed on the backside 

of levees to reinforce their integrity, in a manner typical of dredging operations and 

levee improvements that are taking place throughout the Delta. Tab 2, again demonstrates this concept. As noted above, state bond funds are in place to perform this 

work. 

Erosion along the banks of channels in the Delta is also a real concern to interests 

in these areas. Dredging, by adding to the area of the channel, means that the same 

amount of water now doesn’t have to move as fast, resulting in less erosion. 

Barrier Operations for Delta Water Supply 

Permanent operable barriers are designed to pass water under their gates and upstream at high tide so waters can be trapped and held at these high levels for agricultural diversions while export pumping is taking place in the south Delta. Tab 3 

shows how water is trapped at high tide (graphic 1) and then held at high enough 

levels to allow farmers to divert to their fields (graphic 2). Barriers will be placed 

on Middle River and Old River and at the Grant Line Canal. The gates on these 

barriers give great flexibility to change operations in rapid response to farmers’ 

needs. The barriers are also designed to let water pass freely past them during the 

periods of natural or regulated high flow or when water levels are high enough 

without the need for flow control. They also have the effect of helping keep fish 

away from the pumps during periods of export pumping. 

More recently, there have water level problems, due to siltation, upstream of the 

temporary barriers. In such circumstances, it has been recognized that additional 

dredging would be required to deepen the channels and maintain water availability 

to agricultural diverters. 

Operations at 8,500 cubic feet per second capacity are planned to begin initially 

under more limited capabilities of the temporary barriers, while fully protecting 

south Delta agricultural diversion capability. These limitations mean the use of the 

8,500 cubic feet per second capacity may occur less frequently than when permanent 

barriers are fully operational. The planning documents for this work will be completed next year, allowing construction of the permanent barriers to proceed. We 

clearly recognize the urgency of completing the design and construction of these barriers, so they are fully operational at the earliest possible date. 

Barrier Operations for Delta Water Quality 

It is essential to maintain adequate water quality throughout the Delta when export operations are taking place. Current operations of the Central Valley Project 

and State Water Project facilities provide regulated releases of waters to ensure that 

salinity is pushed substantially seaward from the Delta, thereby improving water 

quality. Mandatory salinity requirements are in place at various river and channel 

locations to ensure that acceptable salinity levels are maintained. Exports are made 

strictly within these regulatory requirements, which are complementary with the 

need to deliver high quality water to downstream users. 

We also recognize that water quality both upstream and downstream of the permanent operable barriers may degrade with lack of water movement. Here, the barriers themselves provide a useful tool, since small water releases can be made from 

time to time to maintain circulation and, therefore, adequate water quality. Tab 4 

illustrates how circulation can be impeded at these barriers, if their gates are fully 

closed (graphic 1) and how a slight opening of the gates can help circulate water 

(graphic 2). In addition, the barriers have the potential to push fresh water to the 

main stem of the San Joaquin River and enhance quality. 

Deepening of Agricultural Diversions 

We also know that in some of the areas of the Delta, both upstream and downstream of these barriers, certain agricultural diversions may not be low enough to 

reach the water levels even with the operable barriers in place. Selective deepening 

of these diversions will be done, in addition to the installation of operable barriers, 

so that water will be available under any circumstance. We are concerned about this 

because we know, for example, that being cut off from water for a period of days 

(or even hours in some cases) can cause substantial monetary damage to crops and 

118

farming operations. The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) has deepened 

several diversions over the last three or four years and more recently installed portable pumps where waters levels have dropped below agricultural diversion levels, 

primarily downstream of temporary barriers at Union Island. This diversion deepening and portable pump program provides added assurance to reliable agricultural 

supplies, and is expected to continue now and with the installation of permanent 

operable barriers, upstream and downstream of the barrier locations. 

Maintenance Dredging 

Another condition that may occur with the installation of barriers is siltation 

buildup behind them over a period of time. It is recognized that such conditions can 

impair the permanent function of the barriers and the ability to maintain agricultural diversion capability on a continuous basis. It will be necessary to periodically 

evaluate this situation and remove sediment in channel reaches upstream of the 

barriers, keeping them operational and free from sediment, as necessary. 

Temporary Barriers 

It is also important to note that DWR has installed a system of temporary barriers since 1991 to provide protection to Delta farmers. While the permanent operable barriers give more flexibility to assure water supply and quality to farming interests, the temporary barriers have nevertheless been very useful in maintaining 

supplies, particularly in the summer and fall when export deliveries from the Delta 

could affect farmers the greatest. The locations of these barriers are shown on 

Tab 5. 


88057.020
119


88057.021
120


88057.022
121


88057.023
122


88057.024
123


88057.034
124

Mr. CALVERT. Gary Bobker, the Bay Institute. 

STATEMENT OF GARY BOBKER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

THE BAY INSTITUTE 

Mr. BOBKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the question. My name is Gary Bobker; I am the 

Program Director of the Bay Institute. 

There are three or four major points I would like to make. The 

first one echoes some comments that John Herrick made; and that 

is that in all the talk of the missing infrastructure of California’s 

water supply system, the biggest missing infrastructure is rarely 


88057.035
125

mentioned, and that is a conveyance system formerly called the 

San Joaquin River. In fact, it was the loss of the San Joaquin River 

50 years ago, which flowed to the Delta, that has in a sense created 

or exacerbated most of the problems we are experiencing in Delta 

water management today. 

The fact is that for my friends in Central and South Delta Water 

Agency, my friends in Contra Costa Water District, the degradation 

of their water quality, the exceedences of water quality objectives 

in many years has been an ongoing problem that is caused in large 

part by the loss of the San Joaquin River flows. 

At the same time that there is a water quality problem, there is 

an equity in water supply problem, which a number of you have 

raised concerns about. At the same time that the bureau is scrambling to provide water for New Melones to meet downstream objectives, water is available upstream and in fact it was spilling from 

Friant Dam. That water does not make it to the Delta, and right 

now it is not required to. 

The fact is that because the main stem San Joaquin is not part 

of the system anymore, the folks in the Central Valley Project, 

folks in the State Water Project, folks in the Delta and folks upstream who have to meet Delta commitments are all pretty dramatically affected by that. And the fact—the environmental impacts, of course, have been exacerbated by the loss of a major part 

of the Delta’s fishery and aquatic ecosystem. And that has put 

more pressure on the Sacramento River salmon and more pressure 

on those folks whose operations impact the Sacramento River 

salmon. 

That is not equitable and that needs to change. And hopefully 

soon we will welcome the San Joaquin River back to the water 

supply system, to its rightful place as a conveyance system rather 

than as a drain. 

The second point that I want to make—and I get to be the dog 

in the manger; we drew straws in the environmental community, 

and I get to be it today—is that surface storage is such a panacea 

that people point out to us, that is going to solve all our problems. 

You know, there are obvious issues that the environmental 

groups are always going to raise regarding the environmental footprint. We have heard the stories. I am not going to get into that 

now; I think everybody is familiar with those issues. 

I am going to get to the economic argument, which is basically 

that when you look at most surface storage facilities, the yield is 

very low and the costs are very high. They don’t compete with most 

of the other alternatives available. If you look at combinations of 

different, other—all the other tools that are available to us, most 

of the time financially they are much more cost-effective. 

At the same time, when there—there are a lot of folks who are 

saying, you know, if we just had surface storage. We explained to 

them how we would solve all the problems, but when it comes time 

to identify who the beneficiaries are who are going to pay in part 

for surface storage facilities, all of a sudden the line is empty. 

CALFED is having a problem identifying some of the beneficiaries 

for some of the proposed projects. 

So, oddly enough, I have to give credit to the Bush administration for, I think, recognizing that, you know, the money is not there 

126

in the Federal and State budgets to pay for these extremely expensive facilities. And if people want them, they are going to have to 

pay for them, and right now nobody wants to. 

But there are other alternatives that can help meet California’s 

water needs. And I think the water 2025 initiative that we are seeing from the Administration is, to the Administration’s credit, a 

good sign. Obviously, there are a lot of things we don’t agree with 

the Administration about, but again I have to give them credit for 

saying, you know, there are finite resources. 

Water is a finite resource. Money is a finite resource. And water 

supply planners need to recognize that. 

The fact is that CALFED appropriately recognized that investments in conservation and wastewater reclamation could be 

brought on-line quickly, brought in line quickly, and at costs of 

$150 to $450 an acre-foot, are quite competitive; but now we need 

to get the funding to be able to make that happen. If you really 

want to ameliorate some of the problems we are having, then we 

need to provide the seed money to get that going, and there will 

be significant local cost shares for conservation and wastewater 

reclamation investments. 

Desalination is something that over time the cost has come 

down. It is now probably equivalent to new surface storage and it 

is going to go down. NAD is paying $250 an acre-foot subsidy to 

encourage some districts to pursue desalination because they know 

it is a reliable supply. 

Groundwater: I mean, one of the funny things we can talk about 

new surface storage, which doesn’t work unless you do it conjunctively with your management of groundwater, this State manages 

groundwater terribly. We need to both improve groundwater management planning and we need to reoperate our current facilities 

to use the ground better. Recent studies have shown that you probably get up to 1 million acre-feet just from reoperating existing reservoirs conjunctively with groundwater banking. 

And finally there are transfers. And I will just note, interestingly 

enough, that the market has interesting impacts on agricultural 

users. Urbanization, rather than the environment, is a big cause of 

conversion of land use, conversion of agricultural land use to urban 

areas. The acquisition of water from agricultural areas is to urban 

or out-of-basin users. The environment is a drop in the bucket compared to those other things, and you shouldn’t scapegoat environmental uses of water and land because of that, I think. 

The CALFED: CALFED made very difficult decisions. It is difficult to solve everybody’s problem completely. And it is important 

to look at how all the different pieces come together. And I think 

if you start to pick at that—I have a lot of problems with CALFED; 

there are things I don’t like about it. But I think if you start to 

pick at it, you will unravel the benefits that it does. So I think that 

is important to consider also. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bobker follows:]

127

Statement of Gary Bobker, Program Director, The Bay Institute 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing to examine the CALFED program and ways to improve 

water supply, reliability, availability and quality. 

My name is Gary Bobker. I am the program director at the Bay Institute, a nonprofit research, education and advocacy organization founded in 1981 to protect and 

restore the ecosystems of San Francisco Bay and its watershed. The Bay Institute 

has been deeply involved in the major California water policy initiatives of the last 

two decades, including passage and implementation of the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act of 1992; negotiation of the Bay–Delta Accord and the San Joaquin 

River Agreement; drafting Proposition 204 and other water-related bond measures; 

the intensive analytical and advisory process leading up to the CALFED Record of 

Decision; and the ongoing efforts to restore the San Joaquin River below Friant 

Dam, including the recent 4 year settlement negotiations process with the Friant 

Water Users Authority (during which I co-chaired the team overseeing the development of water supply options to support the restoration effort). I currently serve on 

the Federal California Bay–Delta Public Advisory Committee. In addition, the Bay 

Institute’s Bay Restoration Program Manager, Marc Holmes, was recently appointed 

as a public member to the new Bay–Delta Authority established by the state legislature. 

I would like to focus my remarks today on three very different issues regarding 

potential new sources of water supply. 

First, let me point out that the most exciting prospective new addition to California’s water supply system is also, paradoxically, one of its oldest: the San Joaquin 

River. 

Restoring flows to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam has enormous potential to help solve some of the most challenging and contentious water management 

problems in the Delta and the larger world of California’s water supply system. Interestingly, it is little appreciated how much the loss of San Joaquin River flows 

has contributed to creating those very problems. 

Construction of the Friant project in the 1940s dewatered entire reaches of the 

San Joaquin River below the dam, broke the hydrologic connection between the 

river and the Delta, extirpated the spring-run chinook salmon run and devastated 

other salmon and steelhead populations, riparian habitat and other ecological values. The consequences were not simply limited to environmental destruction, however. The effects on Delta water supply and water quality were equally dramatic. 

(It is important to note that the diversion of the river not only hurts the Delta, it 

also violates state law. The state’s top legal officials, including former Attorney General Dan Lungren, have repeatedly pointed out that all dams in California must release water for the downstream environment and the claimed exemption for Friant 

Dam—because it is Federally owned—is inappropriate and contrary to law). 

Loss of the river’s flows means that water quality has been severely degraded for 

downstream users. Urban and agricultural diverters in the Delta have suffered for 

decades from a measurable decrease in quality at their intakes, and water quality 

objectives to protect drinking water and irrigation uses have been violated in a 

number of years. In addition, long standing upstream salt loading and in–Delta dissolved oxygen problems have been exacerbated by the insufficient quantity and low 

quality of the water that does make it to the lower reaches of the San Joaquin 

River. 

Loss of the river’s flows means that some water users must pick up the slack for 

those who do not release water to the Delta. Because Friant Dam does not release 

water to maintain Delta water quality and environmental protection, water users 

along the San Joaquin’s tributaries and in the Sacramento Valley must allocate additional supplies to meet downstream requirements, both in direct release requirements and in carriage water dedications. This inequitable state of affairs was recently illustrated by the juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory events. While 

the Bureau of Reclamation was petitioning the State Water Resources Control 

Board to relax flow objectives for the lower San Joaquin River in June because it 

did not have sufficient supplies in New Melones Reservoir, water was spilling over 

the face of Friant Dam—water that did not reach, and is not currently required to 

reach, the Delta. Furthermore, water project operations in the Delta must often be 

modified to avoid causing water intake problems for in–Delta diverters because 

Delta exports are high and San Joaquin River flows are low. 

Loss of the river’s fishery resources and habitat means that operation of the state 

and Federal water projects is constrained even more than is called for to mitigate 

for their adverse biological impacts. The combination of high exports and low river 

flows creates a hydraulic barrier to the outmigration of juvenile salmonids and an 

128

attractive nuisance for resident Delta fish species. The South Delta project operators 

are rightly expected to curtail pumping during periods of high risk to fish populations, but releases to the San Joaquin River are not similarly increased to share 

the burden of maintaining the Delta environment. Furthermore, the loss of genetic 

diversity and lack of access to upstream habitat areas drastically limits the ability 

of Federal and state resource managers to reverse the decline and promote the recovery of endangered resident and anadromous fish species, and puts greater pressure on the remaining Sacramento River stocks, all of which are experiencing longterm declines and are adversely affected by water supply operations in the Delta. 

It also means that commercial and recreational chinook salmon harvest is totally 

dependent on one source, Sacramento River fall-run production. 

Reforging the connection between this major river system and the critical Delta 

region is properly seen therefore as a solution not only to upstream environmental 

problems but as a key component in providing Delta conditions that ameliorate existing water quality problems, allow greater flexibility for water project operations 

and reduce endangered species impacts. Furthermore, my experience in working 

with the Friant water users and other parties in developing water supply strategies 

to support restoration of the river has convinced me that a number of cost-effective 

alternatives exist for reconnecting the San Joaquin River and the Delta (which I 

will touch upon later). 

The second point I would like to make is that new dams are not the answer to 

improving California’s water supply reliability. 

Since I’ve been discussing the San Joaquin River, let’s take new surface storage 

on the San Joaquin system as an example. Initial cost estimates for constructing 

a new facility at Temperance Flat are about $1 billion, and initial average annual 

yield estimates run up to about 140,000 acre-feet depending on assumptions on 

operational constraints. Temperance Flat water would cost $800 or more an acrefoot, making it substantially more expensive than other water supply options. 

Specifically, Temperance Flat would cost two or three times the amount necessary 

to fund, and only generate one-half or one-third of the potential yield of, alternative 

water management approaches that rely on more efficient use of existing surface 

storage facilities, development of new groundwater storage capacity, and purchases 

in the water market. 

I won’t attempt to address here the very serious environmental footprint and offsite impacts of building and operating new facilities like Temperance Flat. I will 

confine myself to asking a few critical questions: Who is prepared to pay for Temperance Flat, or for the other surface storage reservoirs being evaluated by CALFED 

and the Bureau of Reclamation? And why should the Delta environment or consumptive water users wait for risky projects decades in the making when so many 

cheaper and faster options exist? 

The salient fact experienced as the agencies evaluate the feasibility of new surface 

storage is that none of the interests who unceasingly promote the construction of 

new dams are willing to be identified as beneficiaries who should in any serious way 

contribute to the costs of these facilities. 

But anyone who follows the state of the Federal budget—not to mention California’s budget problems—has to conclude that the days of Federal or state subsidies 

for expensive new infrastructure are past. This is especially true when the local 

cost-share is insufficient or non-existent. 

As Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley recently told the Rocky Mountain News, 

‘‘There is no money for building new dams. The areas where there are pressures 

for more water are going to be the ones that pay for the infrastructure.’’

Finally, I would like to discuss ways to improve water supply reliability that are 

more environmentally sound and economically efficient. 

When normally adversarial interests such as the Bush administration and environmental organizations agree, it’s worth sitting up and taking notice. That’s what 

is happening in terms of developing a long-term, proactive vision for managing 

scarce water resources in the semi-arid western states. 

In launching the Administration’s Water 2025 initiative earlier this month in 

Denver, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s message was that conservation, not 

dams, is the key to future water management. Water 2025 emphasizes the central 

role of conservation, efficiency, markets and improved technology in meeting changing water demands. 

I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary’s list, and I would add to it a fundamental new principle for California: local self-reliance. The competition between 

local and out-of-basin uses of water, the fragility of the Bay–Delta/Central Valley 

watershed environment, the uncertain effects of climate change on the state’s already highly variable hydrology, and the need to secure a greater share of local 

funding sources for new water supply initiatives, all encourage a shift toward lessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
129

ening each region’s dependence on imported water supplies and maximizing the 

more efficient use and reuse of existing supplies and of existing storage capacity. 

That in fact is the trend being followed by the managers of some of the state’s largest water districts, who have been investing heavily in implementing urban conservation best management practices, wastewater reclamation and most recently desalination. 

The CALFED Record of Decision set a target of investing $1.5 to 2 billion in state 

and Federal funds (with an equivalent cost-share from local sources) for water use 

efficiency and wastewater reclamation in the first seven years of Stage 1. The ROD 

notes that ‘‘the Stage 1 investments reflect the fact that many of the water use efficiency measures can be brought on line in a relatively short time frame’’ (p. 64) and 

estimates the annual cost of implementing urban water conservation measures at 

$150 to $450 per acre-feet. Securing adequate Federal and state funding to implement this ROD commitment represents the quickest and cheapest way to create significant new water supply in California, and one that will be fully matched by local 

interests. 

Desalination is the next water supply frontier. Although there remain important 

environmental and energy issues to be addressed, desalination has improved dramatically in recent years. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

offers a $250 per acre-feet subsidy to districts implementing desalination pilot 

projects. The subsidy is cost-effective because the price of desalinated water, once 

prohibitively expensive when the technology was new and untested, is now roughly 

equivalent to the cost to Southern California of imported water, but represents a 

more reliable source. Technology improvements and competition for supply will soon 

make desalination cheaper and far more attractive than imported water. MWD is 

considering raising its target for new supply from desalination projects to 150,000 

acre-feet (or equal to the estimated yield of most proposed surface storage reservoirs). 

There are also millions of acre-feet of unused storage capacity in the least expensive, least impactful, ‘‘pre-fabricated’’ reservoirs ever used—namely, the vast 

groundwater basins of the Central Valley. The CALFED Record of Decision set a 

target of facilitating and funding groundwater and conjunctive use projects with a 

total of 500,000 to 1 million acre-feet of additional storage capacity by 2007. Implementing these projects will allow for the increased operational flexibility and local 

self-reliance that water managers need in the current environment. 

And it doesn’t take new surface storage facilities to fully exploit these groundwater opportunities. Recent studies by the Natural Heritage Institute for the Bureau of Reclamation indicate that re-operating the nine largest existing Central Valley reservoirs to recharge groundwater basins could create an average annual additional yield of one million acre-feet. That is enough water for as many as 10 million 

residential customers. (More information on these studies is available online at 

www.conjunctiveuse.org). 

To be most effective, these water management tools must not be used in a piecemeal fashion but implemented according to a coordinated and comprehensive planning effort. For instance, a two year study by the URS Corporation for the Friant 

Water Users Authority and a coalition of environmental and fishing groups headed 

by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that about 400,000 acre-feet of new 

supply could be created on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley by a combination 

of reservoir reoperation, long and short term water purchases, efficiency improvements, downstream recapture of releases, and groundwater banking. The cost of implementing this approach is significantly less than relying on new surface storage. 

(The full study can be downloaded at www.dpla.water.ca.gov/sjd/sjrmp). 

Pursuing a combination of conservation, desalination, groundwater banking, and 

a regulated water market would allow California to obtain a more reliable water 

supply and greater actual yield than all of the surface storage projects proposed for 

evaluation by CALFED or the Bureau of Reclamation, at a fraction of the cost. Continued Federal funding and support for conservation, desalination, and groundwater 

banking programs provides the impetus for innovative and cost-effective new 

projects that attract significant local funding and can help increase the resilience 

and flexibility of the state’s water supply system because they can be implemented 

in the near future. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. 

Mr. CALVERT. Nicole Van Vleck of the Northern California Water 

Association, you are recognized. 

130

STATEMENT OF NICOLE VAN VLECK,

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION 

Ms. VAN VLECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee 

members. I am a rice farmer, and I am a managing partner and 

owner in Montna Farms in Sutter County, California. I represent 

today the Northern California Water Association as a Director on 

their board, and we appreciate the opportunity to testify today on 

the positive efforts that are now under way to implement the Sacramento Valley Water Management Program. 

The program is a grass-roots, collaborative effort to increase 

water supplies and provide environmental needs in the Sacramento 

Valley. Most notably, this regional program is built upon local partnerships in the Sacramento Valley that has really led to unprecedented collaboration with historically warring parties here throughout California, including southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, the central coast, and certain parts of the Bay Area. 

The ability to transfer water is critical to this program’s capacity 

to meet the unmet demands in the Sacramento Valley and to help 

improve our water supply and our quality—water quality here 

throughout the State. Essential to any water transfer is the recognition of the fundamental property rights for those who hold 

water rights. The importance of water rights to local communities 

is also extremely dependent upon these area-of-origin water 

resources, and also the belief that the actual water right holder 

should determine the disposition of the water right to be transferred. 

NCWA represents 70 water suppliers, such as districts and user 

water companies and individual landowners that rely on the waters 

of the Sacramento, Yuba, and Feather Rivers and its smaller tributaries and the groundwater to irrigate nearly 890,000 acres of 

farmland in California’s Sacramento Valley. Many of our members 

also provide water supplies to State and Federal wildlife refuges. 

Much of this land serves important seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife. We also represent 

Sacramento Valley counties and the business leadership within the 

region. 

To fully appreciate the significance of the program and set the 

stage for future implementation, we will provide a bit of background on Phase 8 Bay-Delta proceedings followed by a brief description of the program and its importance as a regional strategy 

and collaborative effort here in northern California. 

The State Water Resources Control Board for the past decade engaged in proceedings to determine the responsibility to meet water 

quality standards within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The 

State board completed Phases 1 through 7 of this proceeding and 

then focused on Phase 8 involving the Sacramento River and its 

tributaries. And in the proceeding, DWR and the Bureau and the 

operators of State and Federal export projects claimed that certain 

water right holders in the Sacramento Valley must either cease 

their diversions or release water from storage to help the water 

quality standards within the Delta. 

The Sacramento Valley water users, which NCWA represents, 

strongly believe that their water use has not contributed in any 

way to the water quality programs in the Bay-Delta, and as senior 

131

water right holders and water users within the watershed and 

counties of origin, they are not in any way responsible for meeting 

these standards. However, in light of these divergent positions, proceeding with Phase 8 would have involved highly adversarial administrative hearings and litigation that could have lasted for more 

than a decade, and, most importantly, these would distract and 

likely prevent any progress toward really meeting the water supply 

needs in California, including the CALFED process. 

With this in mind, the State board, upon the request of the Sacramento Valley water users, DWR, and the Bureau, and export 

water users, agreed in April of 2001 to defer the Phase 8 proceedings and, instead, allow the parties an opportunity to develop 

a cooperative approach to increase water supplies for environmental needs within the Sacramento Valley. 

More than 40 water suppliers in the Sacramento Valley have executed the Short-Term Agreement, and as a result, the Phase 8 

process was automatically dismissed in January of this year. 

Northern California water districts and companies have proposed 

more than 50 projects that will be part of both short- and long-term 

work plans, and have been developed by a team of leading 

hydrologists and engineers to complete this process. The parties are 

currently preparing a program of environmental review and will 

jointly seek public funds to implement many of these projects. 

The program includes work plans which will comprise an integrative water management package to do the following in northern 

California: 

• Protect Northern California water rights and supplies, 

• Facilitate groundwater planning and protections, 

• Provide unmet demands within the Sacramento Valley for local 

needs, 

• Provide water use sufficiency measures, 

• Develop local water management projects for local use and 

water quality control plan relief, and 

• Finally, propose a sites reservoir as an integral part of a longterm program. 

The integrated water management program described includes 

fish passage improvement, groundwater management, water transfers and exchanges, and flood protection, and is an exciting example of a regional solution for the Sacramento Valley that can only 

be implemented with State and Federal leadership empowering 

local interests to take the actions necessary for this program to succeed. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Vleck follows:]

Statement of Nicole Van Vleck, Board Member,

Northern California Water Association 

The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) appreciates the opportunity 

to testify today on the positive efforts that are now underway to implement the Sacramento Valley Water Management Program (Program). The Program is a grassroots, collaborative effort to increase water supplies and provide for environmental 

needs in the Sacramento Valley. Most notably, this regional program for the Sacramento Valley, which is built upon local partnerships in the Sacramento Valley, 

has also led to unprecedented collaboration with historically warring parties 

132

throughout California, including Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, the 

Central Coast and certain parts of the Bay area. 

The ability to transfer water is critical to the Program’s capacity to meet unmet 

demands in the Sacramento Valley and to help improve water supplies throughout 

the state. Essential to any water transfer is the recognition of the fundamental 

property right of those with water rights, the importance of water rights to local 

communities dependent upon area of origin water resources, and the belief that the 

actual water right holder—the owner of the water right—should determine the disposition of the water to be transferred. 

NCWA represents seventy water suppliers and individual landowners that rely 

upon the waters of the Sacramento, Feather and Yuba rivers, smaller tributaries, 

and groundwater to irrigate nearly 890,000 acres of farmland in California’s Sacramento Valley. Many of our members 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. We also represent Sacramento Valley Counties and the business leadership in the region. 

To fully appreciate the significance of the Program and to set the stage for future 

implementation, we will first provide background on the Phase 8 Bay–Delta proceedings followed by a description of the Program and its importance as a regional 

strategy for Northern California. 

BACKGROUND 

A. The Phase 8 Bay–Delta Proceedings 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the past decade has been 

engaged in proceedings to determine the responsibility to meet water quality standards in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The SWRCB completed phases 

1 through 7 of this proceeding (Decision 1641) and it then focused on Phase 8 

involving the Sacramento River and its tributaries. In this proceeding, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), as operators of the state and Federal export projects, claimed that certain water right holders in the Sacramento Valley must cease diversions or release water from storage 

to help meet water quality standards in the Delta. The Sacramento Valley water 

users NCWA represents strongly believe that their water use has not contributed 

to any water quality problems in the Bay–Delta and, as senior water right holders 

and water users within the watershed and counties of origin, they are not in any 

way responsible for meeting these standards. 

In light of these divergent positions, proceeding with Phase 8 would have involved 

highly adversarial administrative hearings and litigation that could last for more 

than a decade. Importantly, these proceedings would distract and likely prevent any 

progress toward meeting the water supply needs in California, including the 

CALFED process. With this in mind, the SWRCB, upon the request of Sacramento 

Valley water users, DWR, the Bureau and export water users, agreed in April 2001 

to defer the Phase 8 proceedings and instead to allow the parties an opportunity 

to develop a cooperative approach to increase water supplies and provide for environmental needs in the Sacramento Valley and throughout California. 

B. The Short–Term Settlement Agreement 

Building upon the earlier ‘‘Stay Agreement,’’ which led the SWRCB to defer the 

Phase 8 proceedings, the parties in December 2002 executed the ‘‘Short–Term Implementation Agreement’’ for the Program. More than forty water suppliers in the 

Sacramento Valley have executed the Short–Term Settlement Agreement (Agreement) (see attached list) and it has been executed by the Bureau; DWR; the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service; the California Department of Fish and Game; the 

State Water Contractors representing agricultural and municipal water users in 

Southern California, the Central Coast and the San Joaquin Valley; and Contra–

Costa Water District. As a result of the Agreement, the Phase 8 process was automatically dismissed by SWRCB order on January 31 and the parties are now beginning to implement the Program. 

THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

Northern California water districts and companies have proposed more than fifty 

projects that will be part of both short and long-term workplans that are being developed by a team of leading hydrologists and engineers. Unlike many past efforts, 

local water users have proposed these workplan projects and they will be managed 

and controlled by the local interests rather than DWR or the Bureau. Additionally, 

the parties are currently preparing a program environmental review and they will 

jointly seek public funds to help implement many of these projects. 

133

The Program will include workplans that together will comprise an integrated 

water management package that will do the following for Northern California. 

• Protects Northern California Water Rights and Supplies 

The Phase 8 proceedings were automatically dismissed by SWRCB order on January 31. As a result, DWR and the Bureau remain obligated under SWRCB order 

to meet the Delta water quality standards. This means that Northern California 

water users can fully exercise their water rights, which benefits and protects every 

water user in Northern California upstream of the Bay–Delta. This also allows 

Northern California water users to immediately begin the management efforts that 

will be described below. 

• Facilitates Groundwater Planning and Protections 

The foundation for the workplans is a commitment to conduct local groundwater 

studies and monitoring throughout the Sacramento Valley to protect Northern California’s groundwater resources. This includes groundwater-planning projects proposed by local agencies seeking funding from state and Federal agencies. Additionally, the Agreement and the workplans contain a strong commitment to groundwater monitoring and protections in every Program area. 

• Provides for Unmet Demands in the Sacramento Valley 

The Agreement recognizes that demands in the Sacramento Valley may vary and 

that certain demands will need to be provided for within the watershed and county 

of origin. Preliminary focus will be on the Tehama–Colusa Canal on the western 

side of the Sacramento Valley, where certain initial water contract qualities were 

slighted in the 1970’s. In addition, these contractors have received as little as 25% 

of their already short supplies in 1991 and 1992 and only 60% of supplies in 2001. 

There are also assurances that Feather River supplies can be fully utilized in the 

Sutter Bypass/Butte Slough region on the east side of the Valley. The long-term 

workplan will explore other means by which additional unmet demands will be met. 

• Provides for Water Use Efficiency Measures 

Local water suppliers have identified a number of water use efficiency measures 

that will be implemented to provide environmental benefits and operations and 

maintenance benefits for local water suppliers to more fully and efficiently use 

water throughout the Sacramento Valley. 

• Develops Local Water Management Projects for Local Use and for Water 

Quality Control Plan Relief 

Locally developed and managed water projects located throughout the Sacramento 

Valley will be implemented to provide water quality control plan relief for DWR and 

the Bureau in below normal, dry and critically dry years. These projects will also 

help assure that local water needs are met and, if so, water can be made available 

for export needs. This will include the conjunctive management of surface and 

groundwater and the re-operation of existing storage facilities. 

• Sites Reservoir as an Integral Part of the Long–Term Program 

Sites reservoir will be an integral part of the long-term program to meet local 

needs in the Sacramento Valley, to help meet water quality objectives in the Delta, 

and to provide water for export or environmental purposes. DWR, the Bureau and 

local partners in the Sacramento Valley are currently conducting the environmental 

review and feasibility studies for north of delta offstream storage. 

A REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY 

The Sacramento Valley Water Management Program provides the foundation for 

a regional strategy to ensure that local water needs are fully met in the Sacramento 

Valley while helping to improve water supplies throughout the state. California history has shown that solutions to water problems in the state have been most successful at the local and regional level. The integrated water management program 

described above, which includes fish passage improvements, groundwater management, water conservation and efficiency, water transfers and exchanges, flood protection, watershed management and environmental improvements, is an exciting 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. 

To fully empower these regional solutions also requires state and Federal funding 

and the regulatory streamlining necessary to implement these programs. CALFED 

in its 2001 Annual Report recognized the importance of this Program as a regional 

solution: 

‘‘Regional strategies are also beginning to emerge. From the Sacramento Valley 

Water Management Program to water quality exchange programs in the Bay area 

and Southern California, local groups are developing collaborative, multi-purpose 

projects to meet their most pressing water needs.’’

134

We look forward to working with Congress in the efforts that will be necessary 

to empower regional solutions like this integrated water management program and 

to help provide the funding that will be necessary to successfully implement this 

program. 

Mr. CALVERT. We thank all the witnesses for their testimony, 

and now we will get into some questions. 

I asked this same question to the prior group we were with this 

morning in Tulare, and so I will give you the opportunity to answer 

the same question. The first one is easy: 

Should Congress and the public be aware of the Federal expenditures on CALFED-related issues? Does anybody oppose that concept? I didn’t think so. So it is unanimous, right, for the record? 

Everybody says yes. 

If yes, is it feasible to consider that, before any money be expended to accomplish CALFED-related projects, that a 30- or 45-

day period for Congressional review be conducted? Does that sound 

like a reasonable idea? Any objection to that? 

Mr. BOBKER. Mr. Chairman, no objection, just a clarification. 

What level of project review are we talking about? I mean, there 

are literally hundreds of measures that are being implemented 

through all different kinds of processes. So I just—from an administrative or managerial standpoint, what do you have in mind? 

Mr. CALVERT. All these projects would be submitted to Congress 

for review, and we would have a period of time to either accept 

them or reject those plans. So it would just give, since we are funding them, we would like to have the opportunity to take a look at 

those projects. 

And so, last, I guess—and this is the most important question. 

Why is it then that projects involving large-scale construction be 

reviewed by Congress, but other projects, i.e., ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, do not follow the same requirements for 

Congressional review? Is there any comment on that? And, do you 

believe that they should? Greg. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. I would just comment, I want to follow up a little 

bit on Gary’s question. You are talking about new projects or ongoing projects as well? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, ongoing projects usually are staged, and we 

would still have the opportunity to review how those dollars are expended. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Sure. And I guess my initial reaction is that Congress, of course, has an oversight responsibility, and I don’t think 

there is anything that would say that that shouldn’t take place at 

whatever level. And the only concern would be that if you had investment in projects ongoing, for example, the San Luis Low-Point 

project, for us, is one that is a phased project. And, you know, obviously, we would assume that it would stand on its merits, but— 

Mr. CALVERT. And, quite frankly, the primary reason for such an 

issue is that projects that happen that we fund that we hear about 

later, that happen and we do not have the opportunity to review. 

So this is something that is important not just to myself, but I 

know to the Chairman feels the same way and most of us do, that 

we ought to have an opportunity to take a look at these projects. 

135

And if we are going to fund them, and we believe in a representative Democracy, we should have that opportunity. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. I guess I would just react, I had a conversation 

with Chairman Pombo in his office last fall, I believe it was. And 

the whole notion of accountability is something that is very important to all of us. We have heard about the transparency issues, 

that understanding of how these things tie together and balance. 

And I think that is something that I and my agency would be very 

supportive of. 

Mr. CALVERT. And we have gone through a prospect budget analysis, we are finally getting some better numbers; we need to understand what we spend and what we are doing. And, Gary, any last 

comments? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, obviously, I agree with Greg. You know, Congress has the responsibility, has the ability and responsibility to 

provide a level of accountability that it thinks is appropriate. I 

think, from a managerial perspective and just from a good publicpolicy perspective, the difference between a billion-dollar project 

and a billion-dollar program is a different one. I think that you 

want to receive information on the billion-dollar project and the billion-dollar program. But the billion-dollar program may be made 

up of hundreds or thousands of small investments. And do you 

want to really look at each of those investments or rather provide 

the guidance and oversight to the program? And I think that is the 

difference between— 

Mr. CALVERT. The answer to your question is yes. And we argue 

during the appropriation process over small, small projects. Trust 

me, we get into arguments over $50,000. So we are not immune to 

that, and we certainly are capable of doing that. 

Mr. Herrick, Mr. Majors, I want to hear this correctly; I want to 

make sure. This is a very important point here. As I understand 

it, the permanent barriers, you both believe, are extremely important in order to maintain water quality within the Delta. Is that 

a correct statement? 

Mr. HERRICK. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. It is how we get there 

which is the question. This year, we had a problem of water levels 

above, upstream of the temporary barriers. There shouldn’t have 

been a problem upstream. And the modeling which DWR does did 

not predict it and still does not predict it. So we are very concerned 

that the program that we developed for 20 years that we think is 

the mitigation and the protection for us, there may be something 

wrong. And so that is why we caution, fix first, then increase. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, we have the supposed fixer here. Mr. Majors, 

any comment on the difference between the temporary barriers and 

the permanent barriers? 

Mr. MAJORS. Well, the difference between the temporary and the 

permanent barriers are the permanent barriers have the ability to 

store a lot more high-tide water. OK? They give you a lot more 

flexibility in that regard. John mentioned the recent problems upstream is calling into question the use of the permanent barriers. 

There is really three things that you have in place to make those 

barriers operate. One is the barriers themselves, where you trap 

water at high tide and make water available to the farmers. But 

the other is extra little contingencies that I would call them, like 

136

upstream dredging to create more depth, for example, and deepening of diversions, and even portable pumps, for example, in a 

real critical period. 

So I have got a feeling what is going to happen, as we go through 

this over the next few years of development, is you will have a 

suite of, perhaps you would call it, additional contingencies on top 

of the barriers for selected situations. And I think that is how you 

are going to see it play out. 

So I think there are answers. Clearly, there are answers here, 

but we have to be aggressive in applying them all. 

Mr. CALVERT. My time has expired. I will have some other questions with regard to that. 

Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Majors, just while we are on you; just so I understand, 

though, your answer, you support the fix before the increase in 

pumping? I mean, that, one has to follow the other. Am I accurate 

in that? 

Mr. MAJORS. Well, I am just going to say, as currently planned 

in the program, once you have a certified EIR/EIS for 8,500 csf of 

diversion out of the South Delta, that will start operating. However, it will start operating under the very limited conditions of 

temporary barriers. So it is not going to be a full operation that you 

would experience when you have the permanent operable barriers. 

It gives you more flexibility. So—and then I go on to say, when I 

look at the gap between the time that the certified EIR is done, 

2004, and then the implementation of the permanent barrier, 2008, 

it really brings the question before us, can’t we do it quicker? So— 

Mr. POMBO. I think you understand my concern or hesitation. 

You have a very interesting presentation that you have put together, very informative. And when you look at all of this that you 

have put together, this is all in my district. So, obviously, I have 

a very high rate of interest in this. 

Mr. Bobker, I read your testimony, your full testimony with interest in trying to figure out what your position was on a lot of 

these different issues. You talk extensively about the San Joaquin, 

which is also in my district, and one of the things you talk about 

in your testimony is waste water reclamation, desalinization, conservation, you know, a number of other things. And in your testimony you state that the ROD supported this, that there should be 

funding behind this. You lean heavily on that in your statement 

here. In regards to the San Joaquin, how does that replace the 

need for water management upstream on the San Joaquin in terms 

of developing new water sources there so that we can restore the 

San Joaquin? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, there was a study that was performed for the 

Environmental Coalition and National Resources Defense Council, 

Banks, and others for Friant water users which looked at potential 

sources of water supply to improve water supply conditions in the 

upstream areas and offset the releases to release from Friant Dam 

to San Joaquin, which found that many of those tools would help 

to mitigate impacts of restoring the river and help meet local 

needs. 

137

For example, desalination. I mean, is that just an urban issue? 

Well, the fact is that there is brackish and salty waste water from 

oil refineries and others which, you know, is now recognized as a 

source of supply, and I think it is an is underutilized one. 

Mr. POMBO. But if we are talking about $800-an-acre-foot water, 

that is not a practical supply for agriculture. 

Mr. BOBKER. I don’t think it is a practical supply. I don’t think 

that the costs right now are representative of where the costs are 

going to be. I think desal costs, in general, are going to continue 

to go down. 

Mr. POMBO. I would agree with you on that. I do think that, as 

technology develops, that that will continue to go down. 

Mr. BOBKER. I think there are also— 

Mr. POMBO. When you talk about the answers that you come up 

with in your testimony, there is very little, if any, of that that can 

happen up the San Joaquin that would allow more water to come 

down. I think, when you are talking about the Delta as a whole, 

these help and there is no question that these help. And we have 

had those discussions in different urban areas in northern and 

southern California, that it does make a difference to begin to do 

some of these things. But when you are specifically talking about 

the San Joaquin, I don’t see a close tie-in to these things and being 

able to release more water through the San Joaquin. 

Mr. BOBKER. In the specific case of the San Joaquin above the 

confluence of the Merced, there is—I mean, we—a lot of things are 

controversial Valley-wide in southern California. In the specific 

case of the San Joaquin in Friant, I think there are some other factors in play. There are flood flows that can be captured in a variety 

of different ways. They can be banked in the groundwater. There 

is underutilized groundwater capacity there. In fact, there is an 

overdraft. One of the things that we looked at is the ability to recapture it after its release potentially in the Delta. So when you 

add that, when you add through the groundwater banking, recapture, recirculation, and the market together, I think that you could 

actually meet, potentially, all of the needs upstream in restoring 

the San Joaquin River. Then, again, I commit people to look at the 

study. 

Mr. POMBO. I would have to look at that and try to figure out, 

how do you get there without doing more than that? 

Finally, you support the ROD, the CALFED process, all of that. 

You have been very involved with that over the years. But let me 

ask you this, as part of that CALFED process and the ROD, it also 

talked about increased storage, and, do you support that? 

Mr. BOBKER. I support the processes established by the ROD to 

evaluate new surface storage. 

Mr. POMBO. No. I mean building new surface storage, not just 

evaluating. I mean, actually new surface storage and new net yield. 

Mr. BOBKER. OK. Do I support specific projects which are in 

Delta storage, Los Vacaros, and Shasta Expansion? I am not sure 

that I am convinced any of them is worth constructing, that any 

of them pencils out economically; and there are environmental concerns. I am not sure they will survive the environmental documentation process, or in the case of Los Vacaros, survive the voters 

choice. But I am willing to live by the ROD process as laid out to 

138

evaluate and make decisions about moving forward with them. I 

think that in the case of the other two surface storage projects, 

there were major concerns that CALFED identified, which is why 

they did not decide to move forward with them but rather to simply 

continue the evaluations. And, again, I am willing to fight those 

fights within the CALFED process. I think it is, you know, about 

as fair a process as you are going to get. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, I know my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, but 

I think you can understand the concerns that many of us have that 

not everybody is getting better together. And that as long as we are 

doing projects that you like, it is a great process; and if you are 

doing projects that somebody else likes, that we will fight that out. 

Mr. BOBKER. But that is true of everything. It is not just true 

of—I think everybody focuses on what they don’t like. But the fact 

is, that every stakeholder can point to some part of CALFED and 

say, you know, oh, I don’t like that. That is getting ahead. Where 

is mine? I mean, I can do that, too. I can run through a number 

of things that have to do with the environmental water count 

versus real ecosystem restoration and where the money is going. I 

think we could look at land acquisition issues and say that 

CALFED has actually worked with the property owner and land 

user community to try and make sure that they are doing restoration on public lands first and also doing wildlife-friendly 

agriculture as a priority. There are a lot of ways that we fight 

these things out within the process. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Any other questions? Mrs. 

Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bobker, I was reading your testimony, and I have got to tell 

you I agree with you in the areas where you are talking about 

maximizing the more efficient use and reuse of the existing water 

supplies. 

We don’t have any new water supplies. And, unfortunately, the 

problems that this area, Central Valley, has are quite different 

than the LA area in terms of water delivery, quality of water, contamination. And then I just heard that you have got reports that 

we are dealing with in our area, with PCVs that go along, just like 

everybody else in the southern California area. 

One of the things that I am concerned about is information that 

will help all of us work together. And some of the information you 

have, I would certainly like to sit down and talk to you later. But 

I am just wondering, what about some of the areas of the Banks 

Pumping Plant? How do you feel that is going to affect the Bay 

Area? What is the effect it is going to have? If their increase in 

water transfers to the southern California area, how is that going 

to affect the Bay-Delta Area and also the farming community? 

Mr. BOBKER. Sure, 8,500—to use the specific example of the use 

of the currently nonpermitted export capacity, 8,500 in and of 

itself, I think, is not good or bad. It is how you use it. And the fact 

is, that under the right conditions, having the excess capacity, I 

think, could be beneficial. I think we could use it to increase the 

flexibility of the system to protect, to cut exports when we have a 

fishery problem and to pump additional water when we have conditions of low risk. So as a tool, potentially, you know, there are some 

139

good things about it. The real concern is about the yield and the 

guarantees. 

And some of the issues that John raised earlier in expressing his 

concerns about the environmental water count is that there seems 

to be a presupposition that, no matter what, there is not going to 

be any impact on the Central Valley Project and the State Water 

Project. And I am not against the State Water Project giving the 

Central Valley Project more water, per se. What I have a real problem with is the idea that we are going to use this excess capacity; 

and if there is any problem, then the public has to pay, to take care 

of the problem through the environmental water count. 

I think that there is a fundamental inequity there. And I think 

it calls for a new approach. It calls for a different approach to how 

we use excess capacity, where no one has guaranteed that water, 

but we actually use it in the best interests of all the different beneficial uses. And, unfortunately, while—you know, it is really funny. 

I hear a lot of folks that, some who I work with well, some who 

I am very adversarial with, you know, complain about the regulatory demand and control approach. But, you know, when it comes 

to 8,500, they want that yield, they want it guaranteed, no flexibility at all there. Well, I recommend the same flexibility for the 

new tools, the new water supply tools. I don’t think anybody should 

be guaranteed that water. It is the public’s water. Let us use it in 

a way that benefits fish, cities, and farms. And right now, I am not 

sure we are going there. I think we are going down the old path 

of, you know, I have got mine, and if you want to get your benefit, 

you pay for it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, one other question, and I will follow up 

on that, is that you stated in your testimony that the Bureau of 

Reclamation indicated that reoperating the nine largest existing 

Central Valley reservoirs to recharge groundwater could create an 

average of an annual yield of one million acre-feet. Is that being 

looked at as part of the solution to the water issue, the reuse? We 

call it recycling in southern California, you can call it water reuse 

or reuse or whatever. It is the same concept, it is one other tool 

to be able to get to where we all need to go. 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, I think that the Bureau has paid for these 

studies that you are referring to, and CALFED has actually invested, you know, quite a bit of money. Well, it is not CALFED, 

it is the Department of Water Resources through Prop 13 in the 

planning and construction of new groundwater storage. Some pretty exciting studies. The problem I see is that we invest money in 

some of these things but we don’t coordinate it. You know, in order 

to have a really efficient system, we need to make sure that we are 

coordinating our groundwater banking activities, our surface storage activities, our Delta conveyance activities. And right now, I am 

not sure that we have all the tools to do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, what I am hearing, sir, is that we reuse 

water that is water not going into the river for the river flow or 

for use by ag or others, so that we are taking water away from the 

reuse itself by melding it within the river even after it has been 

treated. Yet, we are saying, put more water, portable water in the 

river. And it just doesn’t quite make sense why we are not utilizing 

that methodology. 

140

Mr. BOBKER. I am not sure I follow you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, in utilizing recycled water, you are not 

dumping that water, you are putting it back to use, whether it is 

industrial or commercial use or green lawn or even ag use. It is not 

going back into the river. Ours goes into the ocean. We have no rivers practically in our area. 

Mr. BOBKER. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So that the argument is, then the river is not 

getting that water to sustain it? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, I think that is more of an issue, I think, for 

the Central Valley. I am not familiar with the impacts of recycling 

and waste water reclamation on streams in southern California. 

My sense is that it is not the issue that it is elsewhere. But I am 

really not familiar with the southern California implications. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I am looking at this area being a little 

more concerned about all water recycling, all water use, all water 

conservation, and all water storage including the low ground, rather than above ground, for issues of evaporation, et cetera. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Herger. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up if I could, Mr. Bobker, on some questioning that Mr. Pombo had, and really seek your support, if I 

could, your cooperation working with this. 

CALFED, which I know you are an important part of, the 

premise of it to begin with was that we would all get well together. 

And I am very blessed to represent one of the richest agricultural 

districts in the world with some two-thirds of the water in the 

State of California either originating or flowing through our 2nd 

Congressional District down the upper Sacramento Valley. The 

good news is that we have plenty of water. The bad news is that 

it all comes in the wintertime. The good news, again, is that we 

have this incredibly good growing season where it doesn’t rain in 

the summertime. And, fortunately, those who came before us had 

the foresight to put reservoirs in that can store it in the wintertime, or at least some of it, so that we could use it, utilize it during 

these desert condition times in the summertime. The bad news, 

again, is that the last reservoir, major reservoir, we put in was 

more than about 30 years ago. And during that period of time our 

population of our State has almost tripled. 

And I guess my question is, we have been talking about storage. 

And I know the CALFED talks about Sites, which is offstream. I 

understand that it has a number of positive environmental pluses 

in that it would help the fish in a number of ways and help protection during critical migration periods allowing water for it, also additional water quality in the Delta which would be helpful to the 

environment. 

My question is, would you be able to help us with this and the 

raising of Shasta, but first of all with the Delta or with the Sites? 

Could we somehow work together and not maybe have a society 

that has put men on the moon and brought them back again, again 

some 30 years ago? I would think that we could work together and 

not be suing each other so much so where we wouldn’t make it 

141

completely infeasible to build these reservoirs. Is there some way 

you could work with us, rather than against us on this? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Herger, I have been 

and many of my colleagues have been working together with our 

colleagues in the hydrolyte brotherhood and sisterhood. I mean, 

that is what CALFED is all about. I mean, I spent much more time 

than I care to remember, you know, working through the CALFED 

process and trying to come to collaborative and consensus solutions 

to problems. It doesn’t mean we are going to agree on everything. 

We continue to have major environmental and economic concerns 

about things like Sites Reservoir. I will point out, though, that I 

think there are some other—I think there are other approaches 

that need to be utilized. I think that groundwater management in 

the Sacramento Valley could be dramatically improved. And while 

I have concerns about the long-term management, the long-term 

planning process of the Phase-A process, the Sacramento Valley 

Water Management Agreement, I think that the short term has 

been very positive. And, you know, I really give credit to those folks 

who are looking at all kinds of innovative new projects. And I think 

that is the way to go, and I think we need to see how successful 

those are. 

I note also that, you know, one assumption that is dangerous to 

make is that population growth means an equivalent amount of 

water supply development. One unit of water does not equal one 

person. We have seen that in southern California. We saw that in 

Los Angeles, where the population went up and up and up, but 

water use remained stable. The fact is that as we become better 

water managers, we use our existing supplies more efficiently. And 

that is, I think, incumbent both just as good public policy, but also 

as California’s Constitution requires, I think that is something we 

really have to prove. And we haven’t gone the full nine yards on 

using our water efficiently. That is my personal belief. 

I will also note that in the Sacramento Valley, that, you know, 

the major users, the Sacramento contractors, the CVB, you know, 

in most years don’t use their full entitlement. And in fact, you 

know, so I am not sure that the crisis is there that people think 

there is. But we have been, as I say, the bottom line is that we are 

working to define the places where we can meet on things like how 

do we manage groundwater, how do we reoperate the system so 

that we meet all our needs? And we will continue to do that. 

Mr. HERGER. Now, I happen to agree with you; I think there is 

much we can do and much we are doing. And I do want to commend you in the areas you are working with us to conserve. There 

is much we can do to be more efficient. But would you agree that 

when a State almost triples and will almost double again in the 

next 20 years, that there comes a point when we have basically 

conserved all we can conserve; that we, basically, become efficient 

as we can become, and there comes a time when we need more reservoirs to store more water? Would you agree with that? And is 

there some way that you could, rather than fighting against us on 

Sites Reservoir, that you could work with us on that, as well as the 

conservation part, which I believe there is a limit? And many feel 

we are approaching that limit right now? 

142

Mr. BOBKER. Is there a time when you run up against the, you 

know, sort of the maximum of conservation? Well, probably. I just 

don’t think we are anywhere near there. I mean, I really think we 

are— 

Mr. HERGER. How close do you think we are? Let us say it takes 

15, 20 years when you start a project to finish it. Do you think 

within the next 10, 15 years we will be there if we started building 

it now? Or, what do you think? Thirty, 50? What is the radical environmental community’s slide on when that time is? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, I can’t speak for the radical environmental 

community. 

Mr. HERGER. Well, I will take your answer. 

Mr. BOBKER. I will speak for the sellout environmental community. 

Mr. HERGER. When is it? I mean, 50, 100 years? Is there any period of time there? Does the State grow by triple, five times, a hundred times? Is there any time there where you think that you 

would support a Sites, which they say is going to help the environment? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, again, you know, I disagree with the fundamental analysis of the benefits that Sites will provide. 

Mr. HERGER. No matter how much the State grows in population? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, a bad choice is a bad choice. 

Mr. HERGER. What is your good choice of getting more water 

once we run out? Is there a good choice? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, I do not think that we have run out of water. 

I think that there are many options for us to use it more wisely. 

But the final point I want to make is that—and again, I hear all 

this, food for your thought, which is just that things like Sites only 

work very well—I mean, if every year was January 1997, where we 

had this huge flood, yeah, you could take water out of the system. 

Who cares. Right? But that is not the way the system works. Most 

of the time, we don’t have that kind of surplus. And the only way 

that facilities like Sites make sense is if you start taking water in 

time periods when it actually has an effect on the environment and 

on downstream water users. So ultimately, those facilities don’t 

work very well, and we think we really need to look at the other 

tools and maximize those. 

Mr. HERGER. So basically, you never see a time when you would 

see a new reservoir, more storage, no matter how big the State got, 

regardless? 

Mr. BOBKER. I will not categorically state that I would never support a new surface storage reservoir. I will not say that. 

Mr. HERGER. But you can’t see any time in the future, no matter 

how far it is, that you could estimate that that might be? 

Mr. BOBKER. I currently would support the use of the Tulare 

Lake Bed as a surface storage reservoir. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Martel—Dennis, excuse me. I am sorry. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been gearing up here for quite a while. I will explode if 

I don’t talk very quick here. 

143

I want to start by asking a question to the representative from 

the Metropolitan Water District, Mr. Majors. I understand that one 

of your representatives, Mr. Quinn, recently met with representatives from the San Joaquin River Exchange contractors and from 

the Friant Water Users Authority. At the meeting, he indicated 

that MWD was prepared to support further developments of storage projects on the upper San Joaquin. Can you give us your take 

on that, on the record, please, sir? 

Mr. MAJORS. My understanding of the meeting was that there 

were issues raised regarding could any beneficial supplies that are 

developed in that region be helpful to a Metropolitan Water District. And I think we have an open mind on that in terms of how 

it could benefit us from, say, a water quality exchange, you have 

heard of that kind of concept, where we are trading Sierra water 

for the State Water Project water. And those things are being considered. I think we are in a curious mode at this point and have 

an interest. 

Mr. CARDOZA. OK. Thank you. 

I have to—based on this morning’s hearing that we were at and 

this hearing where we heard Mr. Bobker’s testimony, I think we 

shouldn’t purse words, sir. I think that what we are seeing is a 

very concerning trend to me that the environmental community 

has gotten its projects or is going to get its projects front-loaded, 

and there is a plan to oppose any kind of additional storage, any 

kind of additional projects that are going to put more water in the 

process. And you support conservation, you support—well, I support that, too. I think we need all these things, but I have to tell 

you that I think that what is happening here is very disingenuous. 

I think that there was an agreement that, you know, we were going 

to move together, and now there is, I sense it, there is a backing 

away. And I have been pushing the water user community when 

I was in the legislature in a sense to get at the table, come to an 

agreement, work with the environmental community, and I have 

got to tell you that they were frustrated a lot of the time. And now, 

just today, it has become much more sharply into focus of why. Because every time there is an agreement, it seems like there is a 

backing away. And there is a serious credibility issue. I heard it 

this morning, that is why I raised it at that hearing, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks, and I have got to tell you that 

I am very concerned about the process based upon the kind of testimony I heard from the environmental community both in Tulare 

and from you, sir, today. 

Mr. BOBKER. Mr. Cardoza, I would like to make two points in responding to you. The first is that, actually, CALFED is often described as getting better together. That is not quite right. 

CALFED was established for restoring the ecosystem and protecting beneficial uses, and to address problems that needed to be 

addressed. The fact that ecosystem restoration projects are moving 

forward is because we have a highly degraded ecosystem that is in 

big trouble, and the fact that it was in big trouble was interfering 

with the operations of water projects and having other effects that 

people were not very happy about, and they wanted to have a 

proactive response. So there is a some good reason for why environmental protection efforts moved forward. 

144

The second thing I want to say, and I want to make this very 

clear, is that I don’t know what the source of your information is, 

but if anyone is telling you that the environmental community 

made a deal that, in return for environmental projects moving forward that they would support a water management solution that 

included new surface storage, then you are receiving falsehoods because that is not true. I and other representatives of the environmental community from the very beginning— 

Mr. CARDOZA. But, sir. 

Mr. BOBKER. —of the process— 

Mr. Cardoza. Wait. It is my time. I have not heard anything that 

has come forward in the hearings today where anyone is coming 

forward and saying, well, we will support this. You won’t go on 

record as saying you will support anything. There is a sincere lack 

of positive commitment that is coming from the environmental 

community that I have heard to anything that is progressive to 

deal with the population problems Mr. Herger is talking about—

there is real growth coming—and I have got to tell you that I am 

somewhat distressed by that. 

Mr. BOBKER. We disagree on the nature of the proper responses 

to deal with the competing demands for water. We don’t think that 

the one-size-fits-all tool that everybody is harping on is the right 

one. We think that there are more cost-effective ways to do it, and 

we think that there are ways that have less environmental impact, 

and we think the analysis bears it out. I will also point out that 

everybody has things they don’t like. There are Representatives 

here today who would say they don’t like the environmental water 

count, they don’t like the ecosystem restoration programs and land 

acquisitions. They don’t like—there are all things that we have 

problems with. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Well, there certainly are different issues that we 

need to deal with. South Delta has sincere issues that we need to 

deal with. There are a number of issues. There are issues that we 

need to deal with. But to say that you can’t tell us anything you 

are for, you want it all on your terms, is the way I am reading the 

testimony today. And it makes others who want to do the right 

thing not be willing to negotiate and make a deal, because, frankly, 

you have to be able to make a deal. And if you are not ever willing 

to keep a deal—and that is what I have heard today. I have heard 

that we have sort of gone down paths, but it has always got to be 

on our terms. And I think there has got to be a more balanced approach. And I am just not hearing the balanced approach. I am an 

environmentalist, sir. I mean, I really am. I used to live on— 

Mr. BOBKER. And I am a water user. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Absolutely. And there has to be a balanced approach between those two issues, and I am not hearing it. And it 

is frustrating to me, because I don’t think that we are ever going 

to get to the solutions that this State needs as long as that attitude 

persists. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman. 

I want to get right back to you, Ms. Martel. 

Mr. Bobker, I assume you are opposed to the Feinstein legislation? 

145

Mr. BOBKER. I think the Feinstein legislation could be improved. 

I understand that— 

Mr. CALVERT. Sir, for the record, are you for it or against it, as 

it stands today? 

Mr. BOBKER. As it stands today, we would not support it. No. 

Mr. CALVERT. And you don’t support it because it has Sites Reservoir on it, the Shasta Expansion, and other water storage capability within the bill? 

Mr. BOBKER. No. We think that the issues about the funding for 

facilities needs to be addressed. 

Mr. CALVERT. You don’t believe that Federal money ought to go 

into water storage capability? 

Mr. BOBKER. Well, I think that unlike other water, the many 

other water management tools that we do support, this one seems 

to attract a very low match. 

Mr. CALVERT. For the record, your institute falls against the 

Feinstein legislation. 

Ms. Martel, during the process of—and I assume this is a very 

large undertaking, Hetch Hetchy, and I think it is a noble goal that 

you have to improve water quality and delivery to the people of the 

San Francisco area. Are you through all your environmental documentation at this point? 

Mr. MARTEL. No, Mr. Chairman. Actually, we are in the preliminary stages, and that is the reason why, as I discussed earlier, that 

we are seeking a collaborative approach to all the regulatory reviews and environmental process at this stage in time to pave the 

way so that we can meet, complete our program. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I understand that the road that you are traveling down, you expect—now, you have people that are opposed to 

your improving this system and to make sure that it is ready for 

the future population of the San Francisco area and the people who 

live there presently? 

Ms. MARTEL. Well, frankly, Mr. Chairman, some of the same 

issues related to the environmental community that we have just 

been listening about are going to confront us as we move forward 

with our program. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is a surprise. Now, when you had your bond 

issue, what was the vote of the bond issue to pay to improve Hetch 

Hetchy? How much did the people vote to approve that bond issue? 

What is it $1.6 billion? 

Mr. MARTEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. What was the percentage of that? 

Mr. MARTEL. About 53 percent of San Francisco’s voters approved that. 

Mr. CALVERT. So a majority of the people who live in the San 

Francisco area support this project? 

Mr. MARTEL. Yes, indeed, they do, Mr. Chairman. And 29 of our 

wholesale agencies, serving about 1.4 million people, are contributing $2 billion. 

Mr. CALVERT. A considerable amount of money. 

Mr. Zlotnick, in your area, you have a little reservoir there and 

you want to make it bigger. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Are you talking about San Luis? 

Mr. CALVERT. I am thinking of nearby, the Los Vacaros. 

146

Mr. ZLOTNICK. In Contra Costa. 

Mr. CALVERT. What is that, at 500,000 acre-feet, presently? 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. I believe so. It is not my district, so. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is 100? They want to go to a 1.5 million, I think. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. And then the board of directors just recently decided to put that— 

Mr. CALVERT. Put it on the ballot. What did it pass by the first 

time? 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Anyone back there know? 

Mr. CALVERT. I guess you could ask Mr. Pombo; it is in his district now. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. I think it was—I don’t think it was as close as 53 

percent. 

Mr. CALVERT. I think it was over 60 percent. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. At that time, I think it was. Now, the big issue 

there is the benefits where it would go. 

Mr. CALVERT. And every one of us at this table are elected officials. Every one of us. We stand election, we understand, I think, 

the political consequences of the decisions we make. And I was 

here, as Mr. Pombo was here, as Mr. Herger was here, when the 

original CALFED deal was approved. And all of us, I believe, or at 

least Richard and I, know. And I don’t know about Wally at the 

time; he can testify to that. But we stood behind the CALFED process because we believed there was a deal—that there was a deal, 

that we wanted to get through this process together to develop additional water. So I just want to make sure that we put that on 

the record; that we are here, I think everyone on this panel is, that 

we believe there is a water problem in this State, and we are trying to figure out a way to take care of it in a reasonable way and 

not to be unreasonable about it. 

With that, is there any other questions for this panel? Because 

I know that we have to move on here to the next panel so we can 

all get on our airplanes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One question for Mr. Forster, please. 

Mr. Forster, how does the Regional Council for Rural Counties 

feel about increasing the pumping of the Banks, the pumping 

plant? 

Mr. FORSTER. I think we could support that if some other solutions were brought into the process. As you know, the CALFED, 

the scope in CALFED doesn’t include many of the 29 counties within RCRC. Namely, if you look at the Trinity Basin, the Klamath 

Basin, Mono Lake, Imperial, all of those areas are not included 

within the scope of CALFED. So we don’t believe CALFED goes far 

enough, we don’t think it provides a solution for the whole State 

of California. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any other questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One more statement. And that is, the last is, 

southern California goes on very, very crucial water conservation 

when we have drought; and yet, I lived in Sacramento for 6 years, 

never paid water. I wish that were the case in southern California, 

because let me tell you, it is not only expensive, but it is very, very 

critical for us. It is our drinking water. It is water that we have 

to rely on. And with the many, many contaminated sites that we 

147

have found, both aquifers and above ground, we are in a fix, too. 

So keep that in mind when you are talking about water. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Ms. Napolitano, if you would just yield for a second. 

I understand what you are saying in terms of Sacramento. But that 

is not typical for northern California. In the city where I was a city 

councilman, we have very severe water restrictions every time 

there is a drought, and it is very similar if not more restrictive 

than what you go through in southern California. 

Mr. CALVERT. OK. We thank this panel, and we appreciate your 

coming out and during this, especially you, Mr. Bobker, being the 

designated hitter today. Hittee. 

We are going to ask our third panel to come up and take their 

seats. I am going to ask, in the interest of time, while you are taking your seats, we are going to go ahead and have the Bureau of 

Reclamation give their testimony, and then we are going to get 

right into questions. We are going to, obviously, allow the other 

folks here to submit their statements for the record. And, by the 

way, we will be able to accept additional information in the next 

10 days. If some of you would like to submit any additional information, you certainly may. But we will get right into questions because we are under a time crunch here. And with that, everybody 

got their seats, got their name tags in front of them. 

Our witnesses today are Mr. Kirk Rodgers the Regional Director 

of Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Ms. Karen 

Schwinn, the Associate Director of the Water Division, Region 9, 

Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Mark Charlton, the Deputy 

District Engineer for the Project Management Planning, U.S. Corps 

of Engineers. Mr. Michael E. Aceituno, Area Supervisor, Sacramento Area Office. And Chris Nota, Regional Foresters, representing the Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Forest Service. You 

know, Chris, you seem so alone over there. If we have an extra 

mike, or you can share a mike, you can move your seat over there. 

We don’t want you to be all by yourself, especially on the left side 

of the room. 

STATEMENTS OF KIRK C. RODGERS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, 

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, MID-PACIFIC REGION; 

KAREN SCHWINN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WATER DIVISION, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 9; 

MARK C. CHARLTON, DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER FOR 

PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT, SACRAMENTO 

DISTRICT; MICHAEL ACEITUNO, SACRAMENTO AREA OFFICE 

SUPERVISOR, OFFICE OF PROTECTED RESOURCES, 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND CHRISTINE NOTA, 

REGIONAL FORESTER’S REPRESENTATIVE IN SACRAMENTO, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Mr. CALVERT. OK. Mr. Rodgers, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

148

STATEMENT OF KIRK C. RODGERS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, MID-PACIFIC REGION 

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. As has been mentioned, my name is Kirk Rodgers, 

and I am the Regional Director for Reclamations, Mid-Pacific Region. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Today, my testimony will 

focus on the Federal authorities employed by Interior to implement 

the CALFED Program and related activities. I will also address for 

your consideration the need for further authorizations and the importance of pursuing an overarching CALFED legislation. 

I would like to introduce my counterparts who are here today to 

answer questions from their specific agencies. With me is Steve 

Thompson from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. And he is also 

joined by Wayne White. And then also my Assistant Regional Director, Susan Ramos, who are off to my right here. 

Before I discuss the subject of authorities, I would like to reiterate Interior’s support of the CALFED Program and the concepts 

imbedded in the ROD. It has been 3 years since the issuance of the 

ROD, which was in August of 2000. And we have made significant 

progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the CALFED Program. However, with the creation of the new California Bay-Delta 

authority, there is a heightened need for program authorization for 

two things. One is to clarify the Federal role in the governance 

structure associated with the Bay-Delta Authority. And, two, it 

would be to fully implement the programs with the breadth and 

scope outlined in the ROD. 

The State legislation mandates that the authority sunset on 

January 1st, 2006, unless there is Federal authorization. We believe broad CALFED Program authorization will be the most effective approach in clarifying our future participation in the program. 

Let me first focus on the authorities Federal agencies are using. 

Each of you should have received a comprehensive matrix in your 

packets today. There is data developed by our agencies in there. I 

would like to apologize that we weren’t able to fully complete the 

table that you sent us in our invitation to testify today, but we are 

working diligently on that, and we will complete that soon. But we 

believe the table you have will be a very useful tool toward that 

end. 

The matrix shows that many of the program elements are covered under our existing authorities. The first element on the matrix is the storage program. Reclamation is the Federal lead on the 

four storage investigations. We believe we have sufficient authority 

to complete these investigations, and at the last hearing on 

CALFED you expressed interest in the storage program schedules, 

and I have those with me today and they should be part of your 

packets. Assuming that adequate funding and construction authorization is provided, we anticipate construction to be initiated in 

2007. 

The next program is conveyance. It also shows that we essentially have authority. Together with the State, we are currently 

working on the South Delta Improvements Program and the DMC, 

California Aqueduct Intertie. I would like to note that the Federal 

149

participation in the Bank’s Expansion to 10,300 would require feasibility authority as would San Luis Low Point. 

Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service are pursuing water 

use efficiency projects under CVPIA Authority and Reclamation 

needs implementation authority to advance water recycling, reuse 

projects beyond the study level, and additional authority is required to provide grants and cooperative agreements for agriculture 

and urban conservation projects. 

Moving on to water transfers and EWA. No new legislation is 

needed for transfers, but long-term EWA authorization is needed. 

And this is one of major areas on which authorization is required. 

I am concerned about time. I would just go on to say that in 

order to implement EWA over the long term, it would be best to 

have the program authorized as a division in the ROD to provide 

the necessary flexibility. 

The next program listed in the matrix is Ecosystem Restoration 

Program. Fish and Wildlife Services engaged in numerous aspects 

of the program, and together with reclamation has established several restoration programs using CVPIA authorization. These programs are integrated with CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program, and include things such as the Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Programs, Spawning Gravel, and Riparian Habitat Restoration, 

Fish Screening, and others. There are restoration grants that Fish 

and Wildlife Service has available to it that they have authorities 

for. 

So, for the most part we believe we have many authorities that 

we presently that—in place and are usable to us. So in summary, 

I would share with you that your desire to see legislation introduced that would provide Federal agencies with the necessary program authorization to advance CALFED’s. Remember, we need it 

for our role in the Bay-Delta, and would just encourage that we 

proceed with it on that basis. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify and answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodgers follows:]

Statement of Kirk C. Rodgers, Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Mid–Pacific Region, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Introduction 

Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the CALFED Bay–Delta Program. Last 

month the Subcommittee was briefed on the CALFED Program Budget Crosscut. 

Today my testimony will focus on the existing Federal authorities and discretion 

employed to implement the CALFED Program and related activities. I will also address for your consideration the need for further authorization and the importance 

of pursuing an overarching CALFED program authorization. 

Brief CALFED Background and Support 

Before I discuss the subject of authorities, I would like to reiterate the Department’s support of the CALFED Program and the concepts embedded in the CALFED 

Bay–Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD). We particularly support the principle 

of balanced progress across all elements of the Program. There are four equally important objectives—water supply reliability, levee system integrity, water quality, 

and ecosystem restoration—that are being implemented through eleven program 

elements, that need to move forward concurrently to ensure overall Program success. It is important that our Federal role and participation enable us to respond 

to these program objectives in a balanced manner. 

It has been almost three years since the issuance of the CALFED Program ROD 

in August 2000. During this period significant progress has been made in achieving 

the goals and objectives of the CALFED Program through the collaborative efforts 

150

of State and Federal resources. However, our ability to move forward on a broad 

basis is limited until the Program is fully authorized. Furthermore, with the creation of the new State agency, the California Bay–Delta Authority (Authority), there 

is a heightened need for Program authorization to clarify the Federal role and participation in the implementation of CALFED Program activities. The Authority was 

established by State legislation to provide a permanent governance structure for the 

collaborative State and Federal implementation efforts. The State legislation stipulates that the Authority will sunset on January 1, 2006, unless Federal legislation 

has been enacted authorizing the participation of the Federal agencies in the Authority. 

We believe that the most effective approach to clarify our participation in 

CALFED governance and emphasize the importance of a balanced approach to 

CALFED implementation is through Federal legislation that provides overarching 

program authorization. To that end, we share your desire to see legislation introduced that would provide Federal agencies with the necessary program authorization to advance CALFED plan implementation efforts in conjunction with State and 

local interests. 

Federal Authorities for CALFED Program and Related Activities 

Attached is a matrix entitled ‘‘Federal Authorities for ROD and Related Activities.’’ This matrix displays by CALFED program element: (1) existing authorities; 

(2) our discretion in interpreting and applying such authorities to meet CALFED objectives; (3) the method of implementation, i.e., contracts, grants, loans, cooperative 

agreements, direct performance by agencies; and (4) example projects being pursued 

under the CALFED program. The matrix also identifies areas where additional Federal authority is needed to complete specific activities. The eleven program elements 

include: storage, conveyance, water use efficiency, water transfers, environmental 

water account, ecosystem restoration, watersheds, drinking water quality, levee stability, science, and program oversight. 

With respect to the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation has 

three primary authorities currently being utilized to undertake CALFED related activities. The three authorities include the comprehensive Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of P.L. 102–575), the Reclamation Act of 1902, and the 

Central Valley Project (CVP) Operation and Maintenance responsibilities. The various sections of CVPIA provide authorities to pursue a majority of the program elements of CALFED including storage, conveyance, water transfers, water use efficiency, and agricultural drainage-related activities. The Reclamation Act of 1902 

provides general planning (pre-feasibility level) authority. Pursuant to that authority, we are using our discretion to perform CALFED storage and conveyance activities. Our CVP Operation and Maintenance responsibilities permit us to pursue 

CALFED activities that directly involve CVP changes in facilities and operation requirements. 

Authorities used by the Fish and Wildlife Service are numerous key existing legislation includes he Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., as 

amended) which provides authority for informal project consultation and establishment of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661–667e), which allows administrative contributions 

and participation in water operations; the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(Title 34 of P.L. 102–575), which provides a mechanism for funding of aquatic and 

terrestrial restoration efforts; and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (16 USC 

4601–4601–11), which authorizes land acquisition for threatened and endangered 

species, among other purposes. 

The Geological Survey is operating under existing program authorities to implement the science program including providing the CALFED lead scientist, improving 

communication of scientific knowledge, and facilitating the use of best available 

science. 

The matrix is a comprehensive effort by the Federal agencies (ClubFED) actively 

engaged in the implementation of the CALFED Program ROD. The ClubFED agencies include, with the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, the U.S. Forest 

Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Western Area Power Administration. Representatives from several 

of the member agencies are here today and will provide testimony on the details 

of their respective authorities. 

151

A review of the matrix indicates that minimal Federal authorization is required 

to implement the CALFED Program. There appear to be three principal areas for 

which the cognizant Agencies need Federal legislation: 

(1) authorization to implement a long-term Environmental Water Account in a 

fashion that supports the vision and flexibility envisioned in the ROD; 

(2) authorization to study and construct Delta levees as identified in the CALFED 

ROD; and 

(3) authorization to establish the Federal role in the CALFED governance structure. 

In addition, there are project-specific gaps in agency authorities that need to be 

addressed in order to fully participate and complete the actions articulated in the 

CALFED Program. These would be addressed in the normal project development 

and review process. However, we believe that a broad overarching CALFED authorization would effectively fill these authorization gaps and also underscore the importance of balanced implementation efforts; and more clearly define the Federal role 

in the CALFED Program governance structure. 

Conclusion 

Clearly, significant progress has been made under current authorities and appropriated funds to achieve many of the goals and objectives outlined in the CALFED 

ROD. Specifically, through Federal, State, and public collaborative implementing efforts, progress has been made in improving water supply reliability and the ecological health of the Bay–Delta Estuary, a region of critical importance to California. 

The Federal authorities that provide our participation to address these efforts have 

been utilized as reflected in the attached authorization matrix and program element 

listing. In addition, we are in the process of preparing the expanded authorities 

table as requested by the Subcommittee. To that end, we share your desire to seek 

legislation that would provide Federal agencies with necessary Program authorization to implement the CALFED ROD. 

This concludes my testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the Committee and others for continuing to work with the Administration 

to address the significant water issues facing California. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Attachment: ‘‘CALFED Bay–Delta Program Federal Authorities for ROD and Related Activities’’ 


88057.036
152


88057.037 88057.038
153


88057.039 88057.040
154


88057.041 88057.042
155

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schwinn follows:]

Statement of Karen Schwinn, Associate Director, Water Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Good afternoon. My name is Karen Schwinn. I am an Associate Director in the 

Water Division at the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 9 office in San Francisco. I am pleased to be here at the Committee’s Elk Grove field 

hearing to discuss issues related to EPA’s statutory authorities available to assist 

in the implementation of the CALFED Bay Delta Program. 

EPA has been an active participant in the CALFED planning process since its inception in 1995 and was a signatory to the CALFED Record of Decision in August 

2000 (ROD). Since the adoption of the ROD, EPA has continued to support the 

CALFED Program through our participation in the implementation effort, especially 

in the drinking water quality and watershed program elements, where we are one 

of the Federal lead agencies. 

The Federal Authorities Matrix that has been provided to the Committee by the 

Department of the Interior is a summary of the primary funding authorities that 

EPA currently has to support CALFED implementation. These authorities are contained in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. I will briefly discuss 


88057.043 88057.044
156

EPA’s two largest funding programs currently available to support CALFED implementation. I will then mention several smaller programs that EPA administers directly. 

As the Subcommittee knows, EPA is responsible for setting national standards for 

a variety of environmental programs. One of the key roles of EPA’s regional offices 

is to work with our State and tribal partners as they develop their environmental 

programs consistent with these national standards and then to delegate responsibility for issuing permits and monitoring and enforcing compliance to them. The 

State of California has requested and received formal program authorization under 

both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means the State 

is responsible for permitting and enforcement under these statutes. EPA’s role is 

mainly oversight and technical assistance. Consistent with this principle of state 

delegation, most of EPA’s program funding is directed to the States. 

The substantial majority of EPA funds available for CALFED implementation are 

the State Revolving Fund (or SRF) programs under the Clean Water Act and Safe 

Drinking Water Act. With Fiscal Year 2002 funds, for example, EPA provided approximately $95 million directly to the State of California Water Resources Control 

Board for the Clean Water SRF Program and will award approximately $80 million 

to the State Department of Health Services for the Drinking Water SRF Program. 

Most funds provided to the States under these SRF Programs must be made available to project proponents as loans, not as grants or contracts. 

Under the Clean Water SRF Program, EPA provides a grant to the State who, 

in turn, makes loans to communities, individuals and other entities for activities to 

improve water quality. As money is paid back into the SRF, new loans are made 

to other recipients. The program was initially used to build and improve wastewater 

treatment facilities. Although this is still the largest area of expenditure, loans are 

also increasingly used for estuary improvement projects, non-point source projects, 

stormwater run-off controls, water recycling and water conservation. The State has 

established a priority-setting system, consistent with the provisions of the Clean 

Water Act. On an annual basis, the State solicits projects and ranks proposals according to their priority system. Their resulting proposed expenditure plan is available for public review and comment. Several projects funded through the Clean 

Water SRF Program have been noted in the CALFED Cross-cut Budget as supporting CALFED goals and objectives, including water recycling projects and wetlands restoration projects. 

The Drinking Water SRF Program was established in 1996 in the amendments 

to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Like the Clean Water SRF, EPA provides a grant 

to the state to capitalize revolving loan funds. The State then provides loans to 

drinking water systems for infrastructure improvements needed to ensure safe 

drinking water. States may also use a portion of these funds for activities to prevent 

drinking water contamination, such as enhanced water system management and 

source water protection. As with the Clean Water SRF Program, the State has established a priority-setting system consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act and 

has a public process to solicit and rank projects. 

Although there is EPA oversight of the SRF programs, these funds are, by Congressional design, subject to the direction and priorities developed by the States, 

within the limitations of the statutes. In addition, again because of the deference 

to the states that is built into these SRF programs, reports back to EPA from the 

states about how the SRF funds have been allocated are somewhat summary in nature. For this reason, we rely on the state agencies to prepare the project-specific 

accounting of its SRF allocations for the CALFED cross-cut budget process. 

Aside from our grants to the states, there is a relatively limited amount of money 

that EPA directly controls. In recent years, this has included funding for the 

National Estuary Program, wetlands protection program, and various Special Appropriations grants included in the Agency’s annual appropriations legislation. In 

these cases, EPA relies exclusively on grants, not contracts. These grants are done 

under one of several authorities in the Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act. 

As indicated on the Federal Authorities Matrix, EPA typically relies on either Clean 

Water Act Section 104(b)(3) or Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1444 as that grantmaking authority. These sections allow EPA to fund studies and demonstration 

projects that have some nexus to water pollution. To the extent that the CALFED 

Program intends to fund water quality activities beyond studies and demonstration 

projects, such as for operating water treatment or recycling plants, the CALFED 

agencies need to rely on the authorities of the State (using their EPA grant funding 

as appropriate) or other Federal agencies. 

That concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer 

any questions that the Committee may have. 

157

[The prepared statement of Mr. Charlton follows:]

Statement of Mark C. Charlton, Deputy District Engineer for Programs and 

Project Management, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Introduction 

Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss authorities and discretion provided to 

Federal agencies in meeting the goals and objectives of the California CALFED Program. My testimony will focus on the authorities and programs of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers as well as the capabilities of the Corps of Engineers to support 

the CALFED program. 

The Corps of Engineers supports the concepts in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program 

Record of Decision (ROD) setting forth the activities to be undertaken under 

CALFED. In particular, we support the principle of balanced progress across all elements of the Program. Without balanced, integrated progress, conflict and stalemate 

results and all stakeholders and resources suffer. By implementing a broad range 

of complementary programs CALFED can maximize the prospects that the interests 

of all agencies and stakeholders are recognized and addressed. 

The high priority missions of the Corps of Engineers, as established by the Administration, are flood damage reduction, navigation, and environmental restoration. The Corps of Engineers is a project-funded agency. Corps districts are funded 

by project, with only minimal programmatic funding for limited coordination activities. Corps Civil Works projects are cost shared with a local non–Federal sponsor. 

Corps projects are authorized according to a 2-step process. Initially, a study is authorized and funded. A decision document, such as a feasibility study, is completed 

and submitted to Congress. Congress authorizes construction based on findings and 

recommendations in the feasibility report. Funds are only appropriated annually for 

these studies and projects. Congress also authorized a number of programs for small 

projects where the Corps does not need to use the 2-step authorization process. This 

is called the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). 

The Corps of Engineers has no broad discretionary authorities or programs available to support CALFED. The Corps supports the CALFED goals and objectives 

through the initiation and development of individual studies and projects aligned 

with the agency’s high priority missions. As presented to the Committee at the 

May 15, 2003, hearing on the CALFED Bay–Delta Program Budget Crosscut, there 

are Category A and B projects. The Corps has three Category A projects that are 

directly coordinated with CALFED and over 40 Category B projects that have related and overlapping CALFED program objectives. The three Category A projects 

are: the Delta Study, a flood damage reduction study that may only have limited 

ability to meet CALFED levee stability goal; a feasibility study of the Cosumnes and 

Mokelumne Rivers to address ecosystem restoration; and, an ecosystem restoration 

construction project in the Delta on Prospect Island. The Prospect Island project is 

ready for construction but is delayed because of last minute cost-sharing problems. 

The Corps has over 20 Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) projects in the 

CALFED Category B ecosystem restoration program. The Corps currently has an 

ongoing study for Napa Valley Watershed Management that is aligned with the 

CALFED Watershed Management program element. The Corps Farmington 

Groundwater Recharge project is under construction in the Stockton area. The mission’s authority for this project was specifically authorized by Congress for groundwater recharge and is aligned with the storage element of CALFED’s Category B 

program. The Corps has many projects in the CALFED geographic solution area 

that can be characterized as integrated regional water management activities. These 

projects include: Guadalupe River, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, Napa River 

Flood Control, Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks, Santa Ana Mainstem Project, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive Study, Coyote and Berryessa 

Creeks, Fairfield/Cordelia Marsh. Finally, Section 509(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) provides stand alone authority of the Corps 

to use funds provided by others to carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities associated with CALFED. 

The Department of the Interior has provided a matrix of the ‘‘Federal Authorities 

for ROD and Related Activities’’—the Federal partnership deems as the existing and 

potential authorization required for the implementation of CALFED Record of Decision signed in August 2000. As displayed in the table matrix the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers has project authorizations in the program elements of storage, ecosystem restoration, and Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, but may 

need additional authority to co-manage several components of the levee system integrity program. 

158

The Corps of Engineers’ capabilities are enhanced by its partnering with hundreds of scientific and architect-engineers firms. The Corps relationship with private 

industry is integral to its success delivering its mission activities to the country that 

stretch far beyond its mission goals. The Corps has a record of success in bringing 

complex and controversial projects to successful completion by partnering with and 

integrating diverse groups of stakeholders. Most notably are the Guadalupe River 

project in San Jose and the Napa Flood Control project, both award winning projects 

which are in construction. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. I believe we have 

an opportunity, working together, to solve the significant water issues facing California. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement, 

and I would be pleased to address any questions that you or the Committee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aceituno follows:]

Statement of Michael Aceituno, Sacramento Area Office Supervisor, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Mike 

Aceituno, Sacramento Area Office Supervisor for Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), Department of Commerce. I am here 

representing Bill Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I want to thank you for the opportunity 

to be here today to address the discretion and authorities granted to NOAA Fisheries to undertake activities related to the California Bay–Delta Program 

(CALFED). 

NOAA Fisheries is committed to the concepts of CALFED and believes that they 

are consistent with our overall mission: ‘‘To conserve our Nation’s living marine 

resources—including anadromous fish.’’ Central to our mission is the maintenance 

of the health of the ecosystems upon which anadromous species rely within California. CALFED’s approach recognizes that, in order to reverse the decline in ecosystem health which has been observed over the past several decades within the 

San Francisco Bay/Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta watershed, an integrated approach aimed at ecosystem restoration, improved water supply reliability and water 

quality, and improved levee system integrity is necessary. What we’ve learned is 

that management objectives associated with these programs are often interrelated 

and interdependent and that in the long-term a balanced, comprehensive approach 

is necessary. NOAA Fisheries recognizes the importance of such an approach and, 

as I mentioned, is committed to the concept. To this end we have been an active 

participant in the CALFED process since its beginning in May 1995, and anticipate 

continued involvement within the framework of the newly formed California Bay–

Delta Authority. 

I have been asked to address the Subcommittee today regarding NOAA Fisheries’ 

existing authorities and discretion allowing us to perform activities within the 

CALFED Program under the following categories: water storage, water conveyance, 

water use efficiency, water transfers, ecosystem restoration, watersheds, water quality, levee stability, science, and water supply reliability. In addition, I have been 

asked to address the adequacy of these authorities and the need for new authorities 

to complete activities that NOAA Fisheries is responsible for within the CALFED 

program. 

Existing Authorities related to CALFED 

NOAA Fisheries’ continued involvement and participation in the CALFED Program are authorized in several statutes: 1) the Endangered Species Act; 2) the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; 3) the Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act; 4) the Federal Power Act; and, 5) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; Pub L. 93–205, as amended) 

authorizes NOAA Fisheries, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to conduct certain activities to provide for the conservation of species which are in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. NOAA Fisheries hasis ESA responsibilitye for marine 

species and Pacific salmon and steelhead. Within the CALFED focus area these include the endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, the threatened 

159

Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, and the threatened Central Valley 

steelhead. 

Section 4(f) of the ESA requires the development and implementation of a recovery plans for a listed species if it will promote the conservation of the species., Section 7 requires consultations with Federal action agencies to engage in consultation 

with NOAA Fisheries for actions that may affect a listed specieson an ongoing basis, 

to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the 

species.avoid or minimize the impacts of their activities on listed species, and Section 10 authorizes reviews of non–Federal activities which may affect listed species. 

Both Section 7 and Section 10 provide NOAA Fisheries to allow for the issuance of 

incidental take of listed species in certain circumstancespermits. NOAA Fisheries is 

actively working with the CALFED program in the development and implementation of its Multiple Species Conservation Strategy (MSCS) through early coordination and has recently established the Central Valley Technical Recovery Team to develop a Section 4(f) recovery plan for listed salmon and steelhead within the 

CALFED focus area. 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq) set forth new mandates for NOAA Fisheries and Federal action agencies to protect important marine and anadromous fish 

habitat. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may 

adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) are required to consult with NOAA 

Fisheries regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on EFH. Essential Fish 

Habitat is defined in the MSA as ‘‘...those waters and substrate necessary to fish 

for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity...’’. 

NOAA Fisheries regulations further define ‘‘waters’’ to include aquatic areas and 

their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties; ‘‘substrate’’ to include 

sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological 

communities; ‘‘necessary’’ to mean the habitat required to support a sustainable 

fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and ‘‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity’’ to cover a species’ full life cycle. 

Within the CALFED focus area, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council has 

delineated EFH for west coast groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific coast 

salmon. Pacific salmon occur throughout the CALFED focus area while groundfish 

and pelagic species occur only within San Francisco Bay and the western extremes 

of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. 

The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a–757g; P.L. 89–304, as 

amended) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, along with the Secretary of the Interior, to enter into cooperative agreements with States and other non–Federal interests, to protect anadromous fishery resources. Pursuant to the agreements authorized under this Act, the Secretary may, among other activities, conduct investigations, engineering and biological surveys, and research and study and make recommendations regarding the development and management of streams and other 

bodies of water consistent with the intent of the Act. 

The Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 791a–828c; Act of June 10, 1920, as 

amended) provides authority to NOAA Fisheries to recommend conditions to protect, 

mitigate damages to, and enhance anadromous fish, including related spawning 

grounds and habitat for those hydropower projects licensed by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC). Section 18 of the FPA provides authority for NOAA 

Fisheries to issue mandatory fishway prescriptions when we determine it necessary 

to ‘‘maintain all life stages of such fish.’’ The fishway prescription requires the licensee to construct and maintain a fishway, which can include project operations 

necessary for the fishway to function. 

Additionally, FERC must ensure that the proposed hydropower project preserves 

other aspects of environmental quality, and be best adapted to a comprehensive 

plan for developing the waterway; for providing adequate protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife, and for other public uses. FERC hydropower 

projects are licensed for 30–50 years, and it is during the relicensing process (or 

during the original licensing process, in the case of a new project) that NOAA Fisheries exercises our authority, although there are provisions to re-open a license. The 

FPA presents NOAA Fisheries with a superb tool for restoring access to habitat and 

for benefitting our trust resources. The science and engineering of fishways and hydropower operations has improved immensely since the time that many of these 

hydro projects were licensed. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661–666c; Act of March 10, 

1934, as amended) requires that wildlife, including fish, receive equal consideration 

and be coordinated with other aspects of water resource development. This is accomplished by requiring consultation with NOAA Fisheries, and the U.S. Fish and WildVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
160

life Service, whenever any body of water is proposed to be modified in any way and 

a Federal permit or license is required. This consultation determines the possible 

harm to fish and wildlife resources, and the measures that are needed to both prevent the damage to and loss of these resources, and to develop and improve the 

resources, in connection with water resource development. NOAA Fisheries submits 

comments and recommendations to Federal licensing and permitting agencies and 

to Federal agencies conducting construction projects on the potential harm to living 

marine resources caused by the proposed water development project, and submits 

recommendations to prevent harm. 

Summary of NOAA Fisheries CALFED Involvement 

NOAA Fisheries has been an active participant in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program since it began in May of 1995 to address the complex issues that surround 

the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta estuary and watershed. We 

were actively involved in the planning phase and helped develop the CALFED Programmatic Record of Decision (ROD), signed on August 28, 2000. Since then, we 

have continued our involvement through the implementation phase. 

Within our existing authorities, NOAA Fisheries’ role has been to provide overall 

program oversight and coordination in cooperation with all CALFED agencies, State 

and Federal. More specifically, we have been actively engaged, through our Southwest Region, in the development and implementation of the Ecosystem Restoration 

Program, and the Environmental Water Account. Our Southwest Regional Office 

and Southwest Science Center have also provided support to the CALFED Science 

Program. NOAA Fisheries has sat on the CALFED Policy Group, the CALFED 

State–Federal Management Group and a variety of subcommittees addressing such 

issues as ecosystem restoration, water supply and water operations, and science. 

Adequacy of current authorities and discretion 

NOAA Fisheries believes that existing authorities are adequate to provide for our 

continued involvement in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program and to implement the 

program within the scope of the August 2000 CALFED ROD. However, in order to 

fully participate as a member of the newly formed California Bay–Delta Authority, 

programmatic authorization may be necessary. While we believe that our current 

authorities are adequate to implement NOAA Fisheries’ portion of the CALFED program, any changes to the scope of the CALFED program would require examination 

to determine the adequacy of existing authorities in implementing the proposed 

changes. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared testimony. Again, thank you for this 

opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you or members of the Committee may have. 

[Attachments to Mr. Aceituno’s statement follow:]

161


88057.025
162


88057.026
163


88057.027
164


88057.028
165


88057.029
166


88057.030
167


88057.031
168


88057.032
169

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nota follows:]

Statement of Christine Nota, Regional Forester’s Representative in 

Sacramento,, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Christine Nota, Representative to the Pacific Southwest Regional Forester for the Forest Service in California. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to briefly discuss the USDA Forest 

Service role in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program. 


88057.033
170

Forest Service Participation 

The Forest Service’s involvement in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program dates back 

to 1997 during the planning process. The Forest Service was a signatory to the 

CALFED Record of Decision in August 2000. The Forest Service played an active 

role in developing the Watershed Program, which expanded the original scope of the 

CALFED program to include the ‘‘watershed’’ lands that contribute flow to the Bay–

Delta ecosystem. The Watershed Program goals closely mirror the Forest Service 

mission of ‘‘caring for the land and serving people.’’

CALFED Program 

The mandate of CALFED 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. 

Specifically, two of the direct functions of CALFED are as follows: 

• Provide improved water quality for all beneficial uses; 

• Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological 

functions in the Bay–Delta to support sustainable populations of diverse and 

valuable plant and animal species. 

These functions relate directly to Forest Service programs and activities to protect 

the public’s natural resources, restore ecological health, and improve water management. 

The Forest Service Link to CALFED Bay Delta Program Goals 

While the Forest Service does not have direct management responsibilities for 

lands in the Bay–Delta area, the Agency manages more than fifty percent of the 

lands that feed water into the Bay–Delta system. Just over eighty percent of the 

water that finds its way to the Bay–Delta runs off National Forest System lands. 

That means the health of those forests and the upper watersheds is a critical factor 

in meeting CALFED Bay–Delta Program goals. The Forest Service does not have 

any direct authority for implementation of specific CALFED Bay- Delta program elements. For that reason our agency is not shown on the Federal Authorities Matrix. 

However, the management of the National Forests contributes directly to the attainment of the goals of several of the elements in the CALFED Bay–Delta program. 

Various National Forests also surround many critical water storage reservoirs, including Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir for the Central Valley project. 

In managing National Forest System lands, the Forest Service’s primary focus is 

the protection, maintenance and restoration of these lands. Day to day work on 

every National Forest in California is directly related to forest and watershed health 

and contributes to the attainment of CALFED’s goals and objectives. 

Complementary Forest Service Community Programs 

The Forest Service has many programs that complement the efforts of CALFED. 

The Agency’s State and Private Forestry program provides funding and technical assistance to the State and local communities for land stewardship and watershed protection activities. In addition, funding is provided to the State and local communities through the National Fire Plan and other sources for work that helps protect 

watersheds and communities from intense and damaging wildfires, including the 

support of local community Fire Safe Councils. The Forest Service also provides direct support for fifteen Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) across California through 

the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106–393). The Act requires that one-half of the work the RACs fund address 

watershed restoration or road improvement needs. In many cases, the local RACS 

are exceeding the fifty percent requirement. These activities encourage and foster 

active participation and interaction between local communities and the local Forest 

to improve stewardship of local watersheds. 

In conclusion, the Forest Service believes that the cooperative CALFED Bay–

Delta Program and its goals are critical in meeting California’s water needs for the 

future. We will continue to support it through our work on the land and our participation in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. We thank you for your testimony. And you mentioned something about starting construction in 2007. When you 

say that, construction on what? 

171

Mr. RODGERS. On the schedules that we have, and I believe in 

the packet we provided, there was Shasta, Sites, Friant, and all of 

those programs that we have feasibility authorization to study, we 

can conclude that by 2005 with proper authorization—excuse me, 

with proper funding, we have the authority to proceed. If once we 

provide to you the documents that you are going to need to make 

those determinations about whether we should proceed with construction or not, we estimate that will take about 2 years. We could 

start as early as 2007 on any improved projects. 

Mr. CALVERT. So you believe that, based upon your existing authorization, that you move forward as long as we provide the funding that is necessary to do this. And by the way, I am going to ask 

the question: Is CALFED necessary in order to provide the funding 

to move forward to build these projects? 

Mr. RODGERS. Is CALFED legislation? 

Mr. CALVERT. Is CALFED legislation necessary to give you the 

necessary authorization, or can that money be given to you other 

ways? 

Mr. RODGERS. We believe we presently have the authorization for 

those specified projects that are in this document which is in your 

packet. Now, I will just quickly read that. For Shasta, Expansion 

North of Delta Offstream Storage, read that as Sites; In-Delta Storage. Las Vacaros expansion, and Upper San Joaquin River Storage, 

which is the Friant or similar. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is there a number, an approximate number that 

you can give us of money that you need to have appropriated in 

the next number of years to make sure this stays on schedule? 

Mr. RODGERS. I do have that information. I will have to dig for 

it. It is in my packet. I don’t have it off the top of my head. 

Mr. CALVERT. And you are assuming that the 2007 is if the environmental documentation goes without a lot of hiccoughs? 

Mr. RODGERS. I realize that is a large assumption, and that is 

correct. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any other comments, obviously, from the panel 

about the statement that Mr. Rodgers just made about being able 

to move this process forward? And we have been working on this 

for a number of years, obviously, so it is nothing that—and I guess 

we could start with Ms. Schwinn with the EPA. Have you been following this process that has been moving along? 

Ms. SCHWINN. I have been, I would say, I have been following it 

in a general sense. I have seen the schedules that Mr. Rodgers has 

prepared. I am not intimately familiar with any of the projects to 

comment on them. We will get more involved with you in the 

project once we have a permanent application before the Corps of 

Engineers. 

Mr. CALVERT. Would the Corps confirm that this process is moving along and that you are working with Reclamations? 

Mr. CHARLTON. Yes. Mr. Rodgers’ assumptions, as he stated, are 

extremely optimistic, but we are aware of them. We do work with 

him. 

Mr. CALVERT. From my point of view, it is not all that optimistic. 

We would like to have it sooner than later. But we certainly would 

encourage everyone at the table to work together to make sure that 

these time lines are adhered to. 

172

With that, Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the previous panel, 

you heard testimony talking about a one-stop-shop idea. And I 

would like to have some comment from the panel about that idea. 

And, in particular, they were talking about San Francisco PUC, but 

just in general, I would like to have comments from the panel 

about us proceeding with legislation that would authorize that. I 

guess we could start with Army Corps. 

Mr. CHARLTON. Your reference was to the concept of collaboration of partnering with the San Francisco PUC. Yes, we have 

talked with them. We are very supportive of what they are doing 

and the process. The process of partnering and collaboration has 

been very productive for the Corps of Engineers and many of our 

partners in particular; Greg Zlotnick who has testified before you 

with the Sacramento Valley Water District. We have been very successful with the Tuolomne River Project where we had just not our 

cost-sharing partners, but other stakeholders to include environmental groups sitting at the table. The Project had been sued at 

one point. The National Heritage Institute later actually withdrew 

their lawsuit as we progressed, and that project is under construction today in downtown San Jose. 

In particular, the San Francisco PUC mentioned their desire to 

support the Corps of Engineers through additional resources and 

funding and our ability to dedicate individual resources people to 

review their permit applications. We do support that. As you know, 

Congress senses in a sense the funding for our regulatory funding 

very difficult for us to adjust the resources to the workload, and we 

are always very shorthanded. There are many advantages to that. 

The individual, when you can commit a resource like that, becomes 

very familiar with the projects, the processes, the people, the circumstance of the communities, and the environment. So we have 

been very, very supportive of their initiative for partnering and collaboration in that sense. 

Mr. POMBO. Before I make all of you say the same thing, is there 

anybody that disagrees with his answer, and is there anybody that 

would have difficulty with proceeding with this idea? 

Let me ask you about the CALFED process in general. As the 

Chairman said, I was supportive of this from the beginning. I 

thought it was necessary for us to have a CALFED process, but 

have always been somewhat apprehensive about the idea of, a deal 

is a deal, and we put together a ROD and move forward with that. 

Can any of you give me an idea as to what your opinion is on the 

ROD? I mean, is this a package that is supposed to move forward? 

Or is this a broad outline that you can pick out the projects you 

like and support those and oppose the others? Go ahead. 

Mr. ACEITUNO. I believe that—by the way, for the record, my 

name is Mike Aceituno with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

But I believe that when the ROD was signed, at least my agency 

felt that the ROD represented a full package and that it would be 

implemented in a certain progression. And eco-restoration was part 

of it, obviously a part that we were very interested in. But there 

are other elements of the CALFED Program that are also identified 

in that original package. And we expected it to proceed on a time 

line that was identified at that time, although we knew it was an 

173

aggressive time line. And I think—I kind of forgot what I was 

going to say the rest. But that is— 

Mr. POMBO. But you saw it as a package and with time lines, 

and we were going to move forward on different parts of it. 

Mr. ACEITUNO. Yes. 

Mr. POMBO. Would anybody else like to comment on that? Because obviously there is some confusion both at the hearing we had 

this morning and this hearing that we had this afternoon about 

what exactly that ROD was representing. 

Mr. RODGERS. Perhaps I could comment. I agree with Mr. 

Aceituno that it was conceived as a package. Although I would add 

that there is recognition that it was—many of the things that were 

addressed in there were at the programmatic stage or level that 

would require further review and evaluation. And that, as those 

evaluations and reviews and feasibility studies developed into either good projects that needed to go forward because they were 

supportable, they should; and if those same reviews demonstrated 

that there were some question or concern, that those projects may 

need to be rethought or substituted with something that was more 

workable. I think there was that degree of flexibility and understanding in there. But in general— 

Mr. POMBO. In that, though, you are not just talking about water 

storage projects, you are talking about all of the projects? 

Mr. RODGERS. That is correct. 

Mr. POMBO. So, you know, when you are talking about ecosystem 

restoration or, you know, some of the other things that were proposed as part of the ROD, some of those just may not make sense 

once you get into studying them. And we may not go forward. 

Mr. RODGERS. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMBO. That is kind of the way I saw it as it was put together. And, you know, I find it interesting in some of the testimony we have, that it talks about the CALFED Record of Decision 

set a target of investing $1.5 to $2 for water use, efficiency, waste 

water reclamation, as if this was a—you know, we had to do that, 

but on some of the other parts of the ROD, they were mere suggestions and we don’t necessarily have to move forward. And a lot of 

my constituents had some real serious reservations about CALFED 

to begin with, because they were afraid that we would end up in 

this situation that we find ourselves in today, that some of the stuff 

we would fund and some of the stuff we wouldn’t. 

I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. 

But I have found it interesting today to listen to all of those who 

testified in front of your Committee that talked about how we all 

sat down at the table and came up with CALFED, and how all of 

the stakeholders were at the table. Well, to the best of my knowledge, none of us were there and Congress was not part of that process. And you had a lot of people that were sitting down at the table 

coming to an agreement, and Congress was not part of it. And we 

have been, in many ways, shut out of that process. Every time I 

have asked about how money is being spent, I have gotten a lot of 

blank stares. And that has been a concern of mine from the very 

beginning. 

I will say, in conclusion, with this panel, I think you guys are 

doing the best job you possibly can in terms of trying to implement 

174

this in a very, very difficult budget situation, and a very difficult 

situation in terms of all of the lawsuits that have been piled on top 

of you. And I realize how difficult that is in getting your job done. 

But I will commend you on the effort that you have put forth over 

the last several years to try to move this whole project forward. 

Thank you for that. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Herger. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to echo the comments of Mr. Pombo in appreciation 

of what you are attempting and doing. 

Mr. Calvert, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that I did 

support CALFED when it came through. I had great concerns, but 

I supported it. I felt it was something we needed to try to do. My 

concerns were that even though, as again was talked about as you 

undoubtedly recall when we were originally bringing out CALFED, 

was this idea of getting well together. By the way, that is something we don’t ever hear, I hear very rarely any more, this getting 

well together. And my concerns were that the environmental community ultimately would sabotage us, would sue us, would do everything they could to stop our project, which is regrettably exactly 

what has happened. 

But Mr. Rodgers, expressing this concern with the CALFED Program is that, in my opinion, is not being implemented in—or, it is 

being implemented in an unbalanced manner despite the rhetoric 

which would suggest the opposite. As you are aware, California Department of Water Resources has predicted that California would 

face water deficits of approximately 2.4 million acre-feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre-feet in drought years by the 

year 2020. And as you know, the Department of the Interior recently released an assessment of western water supply titled Water 

2025, in which the Department states, quote: Five realities of western water. And just to paraphrase those five realities: One, western 

States are experiencing explosive population growth; No. 2, water 

shortages are historically frequent in western States; No. 3, water 

shortages result in conflict; No. 4, current facilities are aging; and 

No. 5—let me emphasize this—crisis management is not effective 

in dealing with water problems. And I emphasize the last point, because we can see how true this statement is if we look north to the 

Klamath Basin. This region of the State is immersed in crisis, resulting in detrimental impacts of the area’s economies and its citizens, and this is a part of the district I represent on the Oregon 

border. Indeed, I believe it is a crisis in the Klamath Basin which 

inspired Interior to develop Water 2025. 

To further quote the report: Interior predicts that the potential 

for conflict in the Central Valley, the area served by the Bay-Delta, 

is, quote, highly likely. 

I personally believe that we avoid the next crisis by bringing balance to CALFED and expanding our State’s water supply and 

PERC water yield. My question to you is, how important do you 

think it is that California build new water storage facilities to meet 

our future demand and avoid the crisis predicted by U.S. Interior? 

Mr. RODGERS. I believe that new facilities are an essential part 

of the overall piece that we have to consider. 

175

Mr. HERGER. In April of this year, we experienced an unusually 

wet month. Were we able to store all the water that we were 

blessed with in April using our current facilities storage? 

Mr. RODGERS. We were not. 

Mr. HERGER. Would a Shasta raise and Sites Reservoir enhance 

our abilities to capture water for use later in the year during the 

height of summer and irrigation season? 

Mr. RODGERS. We could have used more storage in Shasta this 

year. 

Mr. HERGER. And I want to thank you, Mr. Rodgers. And Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to reiterate my concern that CALFED, as 

it is currently being implemented, is not proceeding in a balanced 

manner. Unless CALFED accelerates its schedule with respect to 

surface water storage, it will defy what it originally professed as 

its motto, quote: We will all get well together, and violate one of 

the solution principles of not redirecting impacts into other regions 

of the State. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Herger. 

In closing, I want to thank this panel. I have a couple of points 

that I want to make. I still remain an optimist that we can redraft 

CALFED and clarify some of the intent that we have. Certainly, I 

think that we share really by all the panelists about where we 

need to go in the State of California. And I think we share by most 

of the leaders in Sacramento also that we have a water problem 

in the State of California that, as Mr. Herger pointed out, is evidenced in Klamath. We are having problems, as you all know, 

down south with Imperial Irrigation District and Colorado River, 

and that problem has a ways yet to work it out. And we certainly, 

I have heard no one that doesn’t support conservation, groundwater storage, all of the other issues that we are dealing with and 

we must deal with, desalinization, reclamation. And we are attempting to do all of that. And certainly CALFED legislation we intended will touch on most all of those subjects. But surface storage 

is part of the solution, along with all those other concepts, and we 

need your help and your agency’s help to move this forward. Because it was the intent, and I can say that with all clarity, that 

it was the intent that we would move together and that we would 

all get well together, as Mr. Pombo and Mr. Herger pointed out. 

And that is necessary if this legislation is going to be successful 

and the Federal funds are going to continue to come into this process or additional Federal funds that are necessary to complete this. 

So, with that, are there any other comments as we close this 

hearing? Hearing none, we are adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(177)

CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY 

Tuesday, July 1, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Resources 

El Cajon, California 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., at the 

El Cajon City Council Chambers, 200 E. Main Street, El Cajon, 

California, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Calvert and Napolitano. 

Also Present: Representatives Hunter, Bono, and Davis. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. The oversight field hearing by the Subcommittee 

on Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on California water supply and issues. 

Before we begin, I ask that Representatives Duncan Hunter, Mary 

Bono, and Susan Davis have permission to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

As all of us are painfully aware, California is faced with a dwindling water supply while demands grow every day. Southern 

California’s problems are very acute because imported Colorado 

River water has been reduced almost 20 percent while questions 

remain about our domestic water supply. 

This hearing is part of a comprehensive effort to find answers to 

these growing problems. The Subcommittee heard from leading 

water experts in Central and Northern California on Saturday to 

discuss their needs and potential solutions. Today, we’ll look at 

ways to diversify and improve our region’s water supply with the 

hope of finding some answers and gaining better understanding on 

others. By focusing on these tough issues, we can help meet our 

water needs through the environment and foster a better business 

climate. 

First and foremost, everyone here in California must work together to find a resolution on the most pressing issue of the day: 

Quantifying our uses of the Colorado River water. 

Parties have been arguing for years on how the state can reduce 

its overdependency on the Colorado River water. While Congress 

should not mediate inter-California water-use negotiations, it can 

178

help if and when a California agreement happens. And we can 

hope it only comes very soon. In working with the Interior Department to reinstate Colorado River Surplus Guidelines, this will pay 

tremendous dividends in transitioning our state out of its overdependency. 

Unfortunately, California agency negotiations on this issue and 

the related issue of the Salton Sea have yet to bear any fruit. But 

I hope we can have a frank and meaningful dialog on this issue 

today. 

While the Interior Department’s Part 417 determination on the 

Imperial Irrigation District’s water use and the recent competing 

proposals before the four water agencies will continue to alter the 

negotiation landscape, one thing remains clear: Agreement must be 

found and found soon. Once this 800-pound gorilla is off Southern 

California’s back, only then can our region begin to have certainty 

in meeting our water needs. 

Another key part in solving the certainty equation and adding 

more flexibility to our region is the delivery of water through the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This Subcommittee heard testimony on Saturday about how we can improve water deliveries to 

our region through the State Water Project without harming the 

Delta’s fisheries and farms. 

Southern Californians who wish to enter into water transfer 

agreements with farming interests in the north should have assurances that there will be adequate storage and conveyance mechanisms to cover those market and property right based transactions 

through a new and improved Delta delivery system. 

While we have imported water tools, we must also continue our 

local efforts to drought-proof the region through technologies such 

as water recycling and desalination. Southern Californians have 

thought outside the box in devising water recycling, desalination, 

and groundwater banking programs. I’ve worked consistently with 

my colleague, Grace Napolitano, for these projects in Washington 

and will continue to recognize their value in the water-use portfolio 

in the west. 

As I alluded to earlier, Congress doesn’t have all the answers, 

but we can certainly try to help when and where we can. In that 

light, the Subcommittee will soon use what it has learned in this 

and the other hearings to craft legislation to assist California and 

other western states in developing balanced water supply portfolios. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues here today in moving this bill forward. I welcome the special guests we’ve invited 

here today and very much look forward to hearing your thoughts 

about how we can better work together to manage and share this 

valuable resource. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

As we are all painfully aware, California is faced with dwindling water supplies 

while demands grow every day. Southern California’s problems are very acute because imported Colorado River water has been reduced almost 20% while questions 

remain about our domestic water quality. 

179

This hearing is part of a comprehensive effort designed to help find answers to 

these growing problems. The Subcommittee heard from leading water experts in 

central and northern California on Saturday to discuss their needs and potential 

solutions. Today, we will look at ways to diversify and improve our region’s water 

supply with the hope of finding some answers and gaining better understandings 

on others. By focusing on these tough issues, we can help meet our water needs, 

improve the environment and foster a better business climate. 

First and foremost, everyone here in California must work together to help find 

a resolution on the most pressing issue of the day: Quantifying our uses of Colorado 

River water. Parties have been arguing for years over how the state can reduce its 

overdependency on Colorado River water. While Congress should not mediate innerCalifornia water-use negotiations, it can help if and when a California agreement 

happens—and we hope it comes soon—in working with the Interior Department to 

reinstate Colorado River surplus guidelines. This will pay tremendous dividends in 

transitioning our state out of its overdependency. 

Unfortunately, California agency negotiations on this issue and the related issue 

of the Salton Sea have yet to bear any fruit, but I hope we can have a frank and 

meaningful dialogue on this issue today. While the Interior Department’s Part 417 

determination on the Imperial Irrigation District’s water use and the recent, competing proposals between the four water agencies will continue to alter the negotiation landscape, one thing remains clear: agreement must be found AND FOUND 

SOON. Once this 800 pound gorilla is off southern California’s back, only then can 

our region begin to have certainty in meeting our water needs. 

Another key part to solving the certainty equation and adding more flexibility to 

our region is the delivery of water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This 

Subcommittee heard testimony on Saturday about the how we can improve water 

deliveries to our region through the State Water Project without harming the Delta’s fisheries and farmers. Southern Californians who wish to enter into water 

transfer agreements with farming interests in the north should have assurances 

that there will be adequate storage and conveyance mechanisms to cover these market and property right based transactions through a new and improved Delta delivery system. 

While we have our imported water tools, we must also continue our local efforts 

to ‘‘drought-proof’’ the region through technologies such as water recycling and desalination.. Southern Californians have thought outside the box in devising water 

recycling, desalination and groundwater banking programs. I have fought consistently with my colleague Grace Napolitano for these projects in Washington and will 

continue to recognize their value in the water-use portfolio of the west. 

As I alluded to earlier, Congress doesn’t and shouldn’t have all the answers. But, 

we can certainly try to help when and where we can. In that light, the Subcommittee will soon use what it has learned in this and the other hearings to craft 

legislation that assists California and other western states in developing balanced 

water supply portfolios. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues here today in moving this bill forward. I welcome the special guests we have invited here today, and I very much 

look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can better work together to manage and share this valuable water resource. 

Mr. CALVERT. With that, I would like to recognize Mrs. 

Napolitano, the Ranking Democrat, for any opening statement she 

may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s great being in 

San Diego, given the weather we’re going to be having in Los Angeles. But I certainly want to convey to everybody my appreciation 

for the Chairman’s vision in having hearings given the last term, 

the last Congress, where we had people—we had hearings up and 

down the state, and even in Utah, where we get a better picture 

of California’s water plight versus other states. 

180

And what affects California affects the rest of the nation, specifically in the western states. And it’s an issue that goes back to the 

old adage that whiskey’s for drinking, water’s for fighting. I believe 

we can do without the fighting. 

I believe we can work together to try to bring about solutions to 

the contaminated aquifers that we have, to the perchlorate that are 

showing up in installations that the government had in our areas, 

and the fact that we’re going to have to meet the 4.4 plan before 

too long. 

If we do not work with the Federal Government, if we don’t work 

with the Administration—and I’m hoping that all of you will understand that the Bureau of Reclamation—and I know the gentleman 

here won’t be able to speak to it, but I can—they’re not making recycling a priority anymore. And I think that is asinine. That’s 

wrong. Because that’s what’s going to help California meet the 4.4, 

at least one of the tools we will have. 

And for them to cut the budget from 30-some-odd million to 10, 

or a little over 10, is actually saying, California, you’re going to do 

without. You’re going to have to come up with your own funding 

to be able to do the recycling projects. And, to me, we need to work 

every single method that we have to help California reach the 4.4 

and continue California’s economy, because this all works together. 

It’s all hand in hand. 

I know we’ve had hearings that we’ve heard things that sometimes are a little hard to take, especially from those of us in the 

LA area where we have 11 million people, in trying to get potable 

water to those individuals. 

My colleagues in Northern California are fighting for water at 

farms. That’s 80 percent going to farming, the other 20 for residential and commercial and industrial. And yet we are not getting a 

fair share, to my estimation. That’s my personal opinion. 

So we need to work together so we have an adequate potable 

water supply, all of us. We’re here to learn. I’m here to ensure that 

we all understand the plight of the other areas in Northern 

California and toward the Bay-Delta a couple months ago. 

And I’ve been to the hearings in Northern California. I understand the plight. And I’m very, very receptive to ideas that are 

going to help not only Northern California, Central California and 

Southern California come up with a solution so that we can all 

meet the 4.4. Because, otherwise, there is no forgiveness in that 

plan. 

And we also need to protect the ecosystem, the Bay-Delta, and 

all the other areas, because, otherwise, we will not have a reliable 

water supply. The ‘‘how we do it’’ is where we are coming from. 

And I agree with Mr. Calvert that we need to work together, and 

we need to ensure that we don’t have any more delays. Because 

this Government is not going to forgive California. Believe me, they 

will not forgive California. So we need to come to the table with 

a solution that we all have a win-win situation, whether it’s short 

term, with an eye for the long-term solution. 

So I’m looking forward to hearing from the witnesses. And hopefully, as the Chairman indicated, we should be able to come up 

with a piece of legislation that we can all embrace and work toward 

181

equitably, fairly, and for the benefit of the rest of—all of California, 

not just any one part of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlelady. And we’re pleased to be in 

my friend and colleague’s district of El Cajon. 

Also, my Chairman, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 

Mr. Hunter, would you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DUNCAN HUNTER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

coming to our great district. And thanks to Mrs. Napolitano and 

my colleague, Susan Davis. Last time we were here, we were having an R&D hearing. And, Mary Bono, my great colleague from the 

desert area, thank you so much for being with us. 

And I’ve got a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, that I’d like 

to submit for the record, if I could, and I’ll just summarize it. 

Mr. CALVERT. No objections? Statement, please. 

Mr. HUNTER. Grace, you said we need to have some good ideas 

on how to solve the water crises in California. And two great communities came together with a great idea a couple of years ago, and 

those were the communities of Imperial Valley. 

And the IID, the Imperial Irrigation District, for all practical 

purposes, is the Imperial Valley, because all the folks in that valley 

vote for their board members. And, of course, water is everything 

to the valley, most productive, arguably, along with Coachella. My 

colleague represents the most productive land in the world acre for 

acre. And those folks and the folks in San Diego County came up 

with a great idea for solving water problems. 

And the idea was that it’s difficult for a farmer who’s getting 140 

bucks a ton for alfalfa hay to pay for the highest technology in 

water conservation when they’re getting that kind of money from 

agriculture. 

And yet because water is increasingly precious, upwards of 5- 

and $600 per acre foot on the margin for urban users, it makes 

sense for folks, if they have an opportunity, to share in some of the 

fruits of conservation. It makes sense for folks in urban areas to 

pay to the farming communities the moneys that would be used to 

save some of that water in doing things like putting in things like 

water pump vac systems and more lining of canals. And so for the 

city folks to pay the folks in Imperial County, and if that works as 

a model in other areas, the dollars that it cost to do that increased 

technology water conservation, and in turn be allowed to share in 

the fruits of some of that conservation. 

And that was the essence of this agreement that was made between the community of San Diego and the great folks of Imperial 

Valley. And that deal marched on, Mr. Chairman, and became really the linchpin in our being able to live within our means as a 

state; that means live within the 4.4 program with the other basin 

states, the Colorado River, now inclined to take more and more of 

their fair share. 

And as a condition for making that agreement, we were allowed 

in California to have a glide slope; that is, we didn’t have to come 

immediately under the 4.4, we would have a 15-year glide slope 

182

and be able to ramp down gradually, and there would be a minimum of discomfort for Californians in coming under our rightful 

allotment of water. 

That moved along until the Metropolitan Water District, which 

has always been the big gun in water usage and water control in 

the state, stepped in and decided it didn’t like the deal. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I remember the days when we put together 

the initial umbrella agreement of the QSA and Metropolitan dragging its feet all the way. We finally got them to sign up to the basic 

concepts of the deal, and then we had another problem. And that 

problem was, as we were moving along toward the water conservation plan that had to accompany this deal—because if you have less 

waste water coming off the field because you have a water pump 

vac system, for example, the flow into the Salton Sea is reduced 

and the Salton Sea shoreline goes down and, then you have an environmental problem. 

In the waiting days of year before last, it was announced to us 

by the Fish and Wildlife on the Federal side and Fish and Game 

on the state side that they couldn’t quite make this thing work. 

The last linchpin of that was that they figured they couldn’t train 

pelicans to feed out of ponds. 

We’ve gotten up to a mitigation lake that was some 5,000 acres 

in size. We were going to have a hatchery that did nothing but feed 

pelicans. And it was announced to us they didn’t think we could 

feed these pelicans on time, and, therefore, we couldn’t guarantee 

we would have a conservation deal put in place that would handle 

endangered species. 

So the community of Imperial County and the community of San 

Diego County are faced with a massive exposure. And that is, if 

they went ahead with this deal, at some point in the future you 

could have literally billions of dollars in environmental exposure 

accruing to the party that was asked to make the transfer; that is, 

the good people of Imperial Valley. That’s not fair. 

It’s also not good business. Nobody sells a gas station if they 

think they’re going to take on—or buy a gas station if you think 

you’re going to take on a billion-dollar environmental exposure 

from where the sun now stands. 

And nobody makes a water deal if you think you’re going to take 

on a billion-dollar exposure, potentially a billion-dollar exposure. So 

that problem had to be handled, and I know the state weighed in 

to try to solve that problem. 

We now are on the verge of putting this QSA together with some 

safeguards that have been engineered between the State and IID 

and Coachella. And hopefully we can get this QSA passed this summer. 

But the Department of Interior weighed in, Mr. Chairman, in 

what I think is a way that accrued to the detriment of all people 

in California who have issues with water and will have issues with 

water in the future. And that is that they weighed in to punish the 

one party which had said yes to their request for agreement on a 

water deal, and that was the Imperial Valley. And they went in 

under kind of a botched 417 agreement or 417 rule and denied Imperial County its allotment of water for this last year. 

183

And Imperial County fought back. They had to fight back. They 

had to protest in court. The lifeblood of their valley was being 

taken away by the Federal Government. And they won in court. 

With that, the Department of Interior asked the judge in their 

pleadings if they could come back and try again to take Imperial 

County’s water. And they are moving forward on what is known as 

a 417 right now, which is a scrub of the water use of Imperial 

County. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that goes exactly the wrong way for trying 

to put a deal together. You don’t turn to—when you have a number 

of parties to a deal, you don’t turn to the party which said yes to 

the deal and punish them. 

And you don’t similarly incentivise one of the parties who said 

no, which is the Metropolitan Water District, to continue to say no. 

Because if they say no, and the Federal Government goes after Imperial Valley’s water and gets some of it, it will go, then, to, guess 

who, the Metropolitan Water District. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we’re in a position where we need to come off 

this 417 procedure. The Federal Government needs to approve Imperial Valley’s request for water this year. We need to roll up our 

sleeves and finish the QSA this summer. 

And I’ll just say to my friend, Ms. Napolitano, my great friend 

who represents a great many folks in the urban area, it is in the 

interest of your folks to have new conservation measures put in 

place throughout the state in farming areas where the water that 

is saved and paid for by moneys that come from urban areas, some 

of that water can be shared in by your consumers. That’s an efficient, effective use of water. So less water goes up in evaporation, 

less water sinks in the desert sands, and more water goes to beneficial uses, whether it’s agriculture or the grand people of Imperial 

County or Coachella or folks that live in cities. 

And so last, Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I don’t represent Imperial Valley anymore. I represented them for many years. Now, 

they deserve better than this. These folks went into Imperial 

County, 115-, 120-degree heat, no air conditioning, and built the 

most productive area in the world acre for acre with respect to agriculture. They have been threatened with lawsuits for years if 

they didn’t do more to conserve water. 

Then they were told in the middle of this process they would be 

sued by the environmental interests if they did conserve water, 

thereby having less waste water go to the Salton Sea. So they’re 

put before the box of being sued if they don’t conserve water and 

sued if they do conserve water. It’s not a fair position for them to 

be in. 

The fair thing to do is for the Federal Government to move ahead 

and encourage this QSA. And the fair thing to do for the Metropolitan Water District, while it may hurt their corporate ego, is to 

work with the team, get this QSA passed, and let’s move on to a 

bright future for this state. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]

184

Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 

hearing on California’s Colorado River use—priority of mine has been the proactive 

resolution of present and potential water conflicts over California’s use of the 

Colorado River and I truly appreciate your attention to this matter. 

Looming over us for years has been the growing impatience of our Western neighbors toward California for our overuse of Colorado River water. As a result, they 

developed a plan to allow our state 15 years to ramp down to our 4.4 million acre 

foot annual allotment if we were to approve the complex Quantification Settlement 

Agreement (QSA) by the December 31, 2002 deadline. The deadline was to create 

a sense of urgency with the Imperial Irrigation District, the San Diego County 

Water Authority, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Metropolitan Water 

District to agree to a plan that implements on-farm conservation measures while 

transferring water from agriculture to urban areas in order to meet growing municipal needs. 

Because the Imperial to San Diego water transfer—a key component of the QSA—

might have impacted the Salton Sea’s several endangered species, Federal and state 

environmental laws proved to be obstructive. Because Imperial did not want to put 

themselves at risk of billion dollar lawsuits for implementing water saving measures 

that impact the Sea, they elected, understandably, to seek protection as a condition 

of any water sale. San Diego understood this and continued working as a team with 

Imperial toward the shared goal of finalizing a long term water transfer from Imperial under mutually agreeable terms. 

In the waning days of 2002, following long and contentious negotiations between 

stakeholders, an amended QSA was developed that would provide the needed protections for Imperial and funding to mitigate impacts to the Salton Sea. However, 

the Department of Interior, shocking many, sent a letter to the water agencies informing them that should the agencies fail to approve the QSA by December 31st, 

Interior would reduce Imperial’s water order and increase Metropolitan and 

Coachella’s by—coincidentally—the same amount. Later, confidential emails between Interior and Metropolitan personnel were later discovered that detail the cooperation between the two entities to reallocate the water. The result is not hard 

for anyone to fathom—Interior provided the impetus for the failure of the QSA by 

offering to Metropolitan and Coachella free water that they would otherwise have 

to pay for under a successful QSA. Hence, the QSA failed when it was not signed 

by the deadline. 

In the new year, Interior took steps to immediately reduce California’s draw from 

the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre feet. Although the water reduction would logically come from Metropolitan’s or Coachella’s allotment given that Imperial’s are the 

most senior water rights among them, Interior did as it promised and redistributed 

the water to the other two agencies. Thankfully, a U.S. District Judge saw the recklessness of Interior’s action and reversed the reallocation, essentially instructing the 

agency to go back and go by the book. 

The consequence of Interior’s behavior has resulted in one of the largest assaults 

on property rights the West has seen. Interior has been instructed to complete a 

never before used Part 417 Process to determine the efficiency of the Imperial’s 

water use, which no doubt will result in a reduction in the community’s water rights 

because of the pre-disposition Interior has against Imperial’s irrigation practices. 

One of the greatest priorities the Bush administration has in the West has been 

the preservation of the rights of property owners and the protection of states’ prerogatives. Interior’s actions set a precedent that we should all fear. They are opening the proverbial pandora’s box when they step into a state issue and unilaterally 

reallocate water amongst California water agencies without regard to long held 

property rights. The long term consequences of this radical action will be fully realized when a future administration, with powerful designs on rural water, will not 

feel restrained because the precedent will have already been established. 

The Department of Interior should abandon this potentially disastrous course of 

action and work toward a solution by encouraging the water agencies to stay the 

course and come to an agreement on a final QSA. The excuse that Interior is under 

‘‘court order’’ to complete the 417 Process is unfounded. I have asked Interior to 

delay the process and concentrate on bringing parties together to complete the QSA, 

and I would encourage Interior to make that case to the presiding judge—he just 

might agree. 

We do not need threats and heavy handed tactics—we need solutions to Western 

water problems and we need water security in California. This historic water transfer will provide water supply diversity to San Diego and a badly needed economic 

185

boost for the Imperial Valley. Further, it is the cornerstone of California’s plan to 

live within its means—a plan in which all participating water agencies, as well as 

all Colorado River users, share an interest. I encourage the Department of Interior, 

as well as the four water agencies to work with us toward this goal. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

My friend and colleague, Ms. Susan Davis, is unfortunately suffering from laryngitis. 

Mrs. Napolitano has graciously offered to act as her translator or 

speaker of the day. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It’s my good pleasure. Susan and I served also 

in the State House, Mr. Chairman, so I’m very, very familiar with 

Susan. She’s pleased to be here, will join with the colleagues and 

the community for a fair and comprehensive as well as an adequate 

and timely resolution to the issue. And I’m sure she’s willing to listen and make her comments in writing. 

Mr. CALVERT. You’re already a star by having the shortest opening statement. 

Now, my friend, Mary Bono, who represents—we represent Riverside County together, and a great friend, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, Grace, you usually are busy speaking Spanish to me and 

for me and translating, so— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Buenos dais. 

Mrs. BONO. Buenos daas. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and 

it’s certainly always a pleasure to be with you and Duncan, almost 

the entire Salton Sea task force here together, so it’s nice to be 

with you. 

I would just like to say that your remarks, Mr. Chairman, were 

very right, and I have some written remarks, also, I’d like to submit for the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bono follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me take part in this hearing. I value your 

leadership and dedication to resolving the complex matters surrounding CalFed, the 

QSA and other water issues around the State of California and the nation. 

California, and Southern California in particular, has come to a crossroads. We 

are now forced to deal with a wide array of issues, including ag to urban water 

transfers, increased demand for water in our neighboring states, the environment 

and the broad question of how we manage the limited resource at our disposal. I 

have always held the belief that these issues are interlinked and therefore, we must 

deal with them as a whole. 

However, over the past year, negotiations on resolving the QSA have proceeded 

in stops and starts, often on a piecemeal basis. The inability to come to an agreement on how best to balance these interests is unacceptable. But, we must continue 

moving forward. It is my hope we can soon find a path towards an agreement by 

all the participants coming to the table in good faith and with a will to arrive at 

a compromise. 

As public officials, we must keep in mind that this impasse not only affects the 

region and our neighboring states, but also has a tremendous negative impact on 

the average citizen. 

Farmers in the Coachella Valley are worried about having enough water to put 

crops into our grocery stores as local officials question if there will be enough water 

to sustain development activities that create jobs and bolster our local economy. 

186

And while the Coachella Valley Water District is doing its best to walk this tightrope, it needs closure and a fair deal to meet these demands. 

There is also a great deal of concern in the local community about whether or not 

our air quality will be protected if we see the size of the Salton Sea shrink due to 

water transfers. Please understand that I realize urban areas need water and that 

in order to accommodate other priorities, the Sea itself must change form and adapt 

to current circumstances. We can grapple with this fact. However, in order to contend with this problem, we again need a degree of certainty as well as responsible 

public policy that does not leave our area like another Owen’s Valley. 

I look forward to being part of this continued dialogue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO. But then to expand upon what I think Duncan said, 

firstly, we have worked tirelessly on this. And it really is a great 

opportunity here. I think those of us who care deeply about the 

Salton Sea, and not only the Salton Sea but the areas surrounding 

the Salton Sea, recognize that the Salton Sea has sort of become 

the keystone in this larger water policy. And whether that’s good 

or it’s bad, I guess it depends on which side of the equation you’re 

standing on. But we really do have an opportunity here to move 

forward. 

All of the players with the Salton Sea have recognized that it’s 

OK, and it actually is beyond OK, it’s necessary to change the 

scope of the Salton Sea. Nobody has decided it needs to stay exactly 

what it is today, but I believe they’re willing to reduce the size of 

the sea through one plan or another. If we can just now get the 

feds and the state to recognize this really is an opportunity to move 

forward with transferring water and creating, perhaps, water out 

of what was previously just all within the sea of it. Now we can 

actually transfer this water on to further use. 

It really is a great time, and I’m happy to have the Bureau of 

Rec here, who is really the biggest partner we have in this whole 

thing. So I welcome you and I look forward to your remarks and 

all of your great ideas on getting this done. So if I can just encourage you to see this as a golden opportunity to move forward. 

But I’ve always said, it’s very shortsighted to single out water 

policy at the expense of air quality. And if you look at Owens 

Valley—Ken, you a long time ago gave me the Cadillac Desert 

when I was first elected, and I thought I was going to have the 

Gabor sisters living in the Palm Springs area or something silly. 

I didn’t know it was about water policy. But all you have to do is 

look back 100 years to Owens Valley to see what we did and the 

horrible consequences. And, if we can, in fact, this time, instead, 

be proactive here and address these issues before they come up. 

And those of you who have heard me speak before have heard 

me talk about the stench from the Salton Sea. And forgive my word 

‘‘stench,’’ but there’s no other word to call it. And it’s awful. And 

it’s a health hazard. And it’s also invasive. If we don’t address that 

as we address changing the scope of the sea, then we’re going to 

be in for larger problems. And as Duncan talked about, re-educating the pelicans to feed off of the ponds, that’s not really the sole 

environmental issue. It is not as much about the birds and the fish 

as it is, in my view, air quality. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I’ll submit my written statement for the record, and I welcome the witnesses. Thank you for 

being here, and I look forward to your testimony. 

187

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady. 

We have a number of witnesses today, so we’ve changed things 

a little bit. We’re putting everybody together. That way it gives us 

an opportunity, the panel, to ask questions of everyone. We have 

quite an audience here today. I was joking with my friends here 

that the meter is running. 

We have quite a few folks out there working for various agencies, 

so a lot of interests. 

So, with that, we’re going to start with Bill Rinne. He’s the Deputy Commissioner with the Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Bob Johnson could not join us today. 

Bill, we’re going to be under the 5-minute rule because of the 

number of witnesses we have, and it leaves us more time for 

questions. So any—this is for all the witnesses, any additional comments, we’ll be happy to enter them into the record. 

With that, Bill Rinne. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. RINNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. RINNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, I’d like to impress that my written testimony be 

submitted into the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, all testimony will be entered 

into the record. 

Mr. RINNE. Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Congress, my name’s Bill Rinne, and I’m Deputy Commissioner with 

the Bureau of Reclamation at the Department of Interior. 

It’s a pleasure to be here today representing the Department to 

offer testimony with respect to the Secretary’s role as watermaster 

on the lower Colorado River and to comment briefly on the recent 

meetings on the Era of Limits of the Colorado River. 

First, with regard to authority and limitation of the Secretary in 

the management of the lower Colorado River, the legal framework 

applicable to the management of the lower Colorado River is 

unique in the United States. The role of the Secretary in matters 

relating to the Colorado River management is authorized and constrained by numerous legal authorities collectively known as the 

‘‘Law of the River.’’ Within that Law of the River, two particular 

parts, the 1963 Supreme Court case, Arizona v. California, and the 

1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, are key to identifying the constraints and limitations on the Secretary of the Interior as well as 

her role in managing the river. 

The primary structure that controls the operation of the Colorado 

River is Hoover Dam, and Hoover Dam is authorized with the 1928 

Boulder Canyon Project Act. And, also, within that act, are a lot 

of the activities that are associated with the Secretary’s role in the 

lower Colorado. 

For more than 60 years, water supplies in the Colorado River 

basin have been made possible for Reclamation to meet all water 

needs within the lower basin states of Arizona, California, Nevada. 

The water storage, the dams and reservoirs are among the most reliable, if not the most reliable, of anyplace in the United States. 

188

We’re able to store up to a 4-year supply if the conditions warrant, 

which is very unusual anywhere else in the United States. 

Nevertheless, the current drought in the basin demonstrates that 

water is a finite resource in the Colorado River. For instance, today 

I was looking at our records, and Lake Mead is about 61 percent 

full, behind Hoover Dam, and that is the lowest it’s been in over 

30 years, the last 30 years. So we’re really standing at a low point. 

The studies that we’ve been doing indicate that the river should 

supply enough water to meet the lower basin’s annual consumptive 

use apportionment of 7.5 million acre-feet for many years to come. 

However, the studies also show there will be fewer years where 

surplus will be available as it has been in the past few years. 

The Colorado River’s flow, as most of you know, is generally derived and for the most part from snowmelt from the mountains in 

Wyoming and Utah and Colorado. This year this has been very erratic. Since we’ve been keeping records since 1906, it’s from a low 

of about 5 million acre-feet a year up to a high of 4 million acrefeet runoff. 

This year, to put it in perspective, our April through July runoff, 

that is, the snowmelt runoff portion of it, is estimated to be about 

54 percent. And that’s probably a pretty good figure because we’re 

getting close to the last part of the month and most the runoff has 

occurred off the mountains. And our projection for the water year 

of 2003 is at 57 percent of those averages. Now, that’s an improvement, a definite improvement over last year, which was extremely 

dry in water yield. 

The Law of the River specifies who can use the water, for what 

purpose, and how much. Until 2003, as I mentioned, water’s been 

available for Arizona, California, and Nevada. All that’s changed 

now with the development and use in Nevada, Arizona and continued use in California. And so at the current time, there’s no unused water, available basic water, on the Colorado River. 

The Secretary’s Interim Surplus Guidelines that were put in 

place in 2001, they want to point out that they would not guarantee the surplus of water to be available, even at this time, depending on what the levels of Lake Mead are. And then the Surplus Guidelines have been suspended at this time. But at the same 

time, even given that, it would not be an unlimited supply of surplus water. 

What are some of the future strategies, and what do we need to 

do with regard to ‘‘Era of Limits’’? With the ongoing drought earlier 

this year, Bob Johnson, our regional director of the lower Colorado 

region and his people put on seven educational workshops in the 

three lower basin states. The intent of these workshops was to talk 

about a yield and the storage and the drought conditions to kind 

of help the public and people, the water users, to understand the 

issues that face all of us, not just the Reclamation as a water manager. 

Out of those discussions and ongoing discussions with the seven 

basin states, we have—we’ve talked about, what can we do to improve just our management of the Colorado River? And the areas 

that we’re focusing on: We have been doing more to improve our 

management on the lower Colorado River, our accounting, make 

sure we really are paying attention to the amounts of water that 

189

are being used. Things like the banking, interstate banking regulations, which were put in place in 2000—Am I there? 

Mr. CALVERT. You need to wrap it up. 

Mr. RINNE. OK. I’ll wrap it up. 

The final analysis, we’ll just have to all work better than ever 

before, whether we’re user or whether we’re manager, to provide 

the necessary water in the southern Nevada, Southern California, 

and Arizona area. 

That concludes my testimony. I’d be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne follows:]

Statement of William E. Rinne, Deputy Commissioner,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

My name is William Rinne. I am a Deputy Commissioner with the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation at the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here today representing the Department of 

the Interior to offer testimony with respect to the water management role of the 

Secretary of the Interior in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and the recent 

public meetings the Bureau of Reclamation has held regarding ‘‘the Era of Limits 

on the Colorado River.’’

Management of the lower Colorado River 

The legal framework applicable to the management of the Lower Basin of the 

Colorado River is unique within the United States. The role of the Secretary in matters relating to Colorado River management is authorized and constrained by numerous legal,, collectively known as the ‘‘Law of the River.’’ The Law of the River 

is principally defined by the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act of 1928, the water delivery contracts entered into under Section 5 of that 

Act, the Federal reserved rights of Indian tribes, the Mexican Treaty of 1944 and 

the Minutes which apply its terms, the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, 

the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Act 

of 1974, and other Federal statutes. 

Within the ‘‘Law of the River,’’ the clearest and most important articulation of the 

Secretary’s role as ‘‘watermaster’’ of the lower Colorado River is found in the 1963 

opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. California: 

‘‘All this vast, interlocking machinery—a dozen major works delivering 

water according to congressionally fixed priorities for home, agricultural, 

and industrial uses to people spread over thousands of square miles—could 

function efficiently only under unitary management, able to formulate and 

supervise a coordinated plan that could take account of the diverse, often 

conflicting interests of the people and communities of the Lower Basin 

States. Recognizing this, Congress put the Secretary of the Interior in 

charge of these works and entrusted h[er] with sufficient power, principally 

the § 5 contract power, to direct, manage, and coordinate their operation.’’

The Secretary’s actions, as delegated to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), are specifically directed and limited by the permanent injunction entered by 

the Court in the 1964 Decree, as supplemented, in that case. The Supreme Court’s 

Decree enjoins ‘‘the United States, its officers, attorneys, agents and employees’’ 

from operating the regulatory structures controlled by the United States except in 

strict accordance with the provisions of the Decree. The primary structure that controls operations on the lower Colorado is Hoover Dam, a magnificent engineering 

achievement that remains one of the Southwest’s critical structures for water and 

power. Hoover Dam was constructed under the authority of the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act—the statute that authorizes many of the activities within the Secretary’s watermaster function. 

The Era Of Limits 

For more than six decades, water supplies in the Colorado Basin have made it 

possible for Reclamation to meet all water needs within the Lower Basin states of 

Arizona, California and Nevada. The water storage reservoirs and hydroelectric production facilities constructed in the Colorado River system make it one of the most 

reliable and robust water management systems in the United States. Nevertheless, 

the water of the Colorado River system is a finite resource that must be managed 

carefully to maximize its utility while sustaining its long-term resource values. 

190

While reservoir storage within the Colorado Basin protects against the variability 

of the annual runoff that reaches the Basin, the current drought in the basin demonstrates that existing facilities and practices do not assure continuity in meeting 

water demands in the Basin. For instance, today Lake Mead stands lower than it 

has since the summer man first set foot on the moon in 1969. 

In light of how increased demands and the current drought reinforce chronic 

water supply problems, Reclamation initiated a series of educational workshops to 

explain basic information about the Colorado’s yield, storage, and usage to the citizens who rely on the river. Seven educational workshops have been held this year 

in all three Lower Basin States. 

As part of its ongoing management of regulatory structures in the Colorado Basin, 

Reclamation conducts numerous studies to make the most educated projections we 

possibly can about future water supplies from the Colorado River. These studies incorporate data such as the River’s hydrologic history, current water supply information, projected population growth, projected water demand and other factors that 

are used to conduct hydrologic simulations of future water conditions. 

Studies conducted to date indicate the river should supply enough water to meet 

the lower basin’s basic annual consumptive use apportionment of 7.5 million acrefeet (maf) for many years to come. But they also tell us there will be far fewer years 

when surplus water will be available as compared with the recent past. 

In June 1990, Reclamation, recognizing the finite nature of the Colorado River resource and the growing demand for Colorado River water in the southwest United 

States, observed that ‘‘we begin to enter an era envisioned by those far-sighted planners who made the hard choices when the compacts and laws governing the river 

were written...a new era...an era of limits.’’

Let me review a few basic principles: The Colorado River’s annual flow is comprised mostly of snowmelt that flows from the high mountains of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. This annual flow can vary greatly. Since record-keeping began in 

1906, the annual river flows have ranged from a low of five million acre-feet to a 

high of more than 24 maf. 

The water storage system that exists on the Colorado River today was built to 

‘‘even out’’ these annual periods of highs and lows, ensuring a year-round supply 

of water for use by the seven Basin States and Mexico. 

The Law of the River specifies who can use Colorado River water, how much they 

can use, and under what conditions. As recently noted by U.S. District Court Judge 

James Robertson: ‘‘[A] Supreme Court injunction, an international treaty, Federal 

statutes, and contracts between the government and water users account for every 

acre foot of lower Colorado River water.’’ Within this system, the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to operate and manage the Colorado River in consultation 

with the Colorado River Basin States. 

The 1922 Colorado River Compact apportioned water between the upper and 

lower basins of the Colorado River. Within the Lower Basin, the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act of 1928 allocated 7.5 million acre feet among the Lower Basin states of 

Arizona (2.8 maf), California (4.4 maf) and Nevada (0.3 maf). This statute also required all Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin to have valid contracts 

with the Secretary for that water. 

Until 2003, water has been available to Arizona, Nevada and California beyond 

their basic annual entitlements because: 

• The water storage system that has been built on the Colorado River ensures 

a stable, long-term water supply. While droughts impact the river’s water 

supply, the storage system has carried the river through several periods of 

drought. 

• Winter snowfall in the headwaters of the Colorado River system in past years 

has been sufficient to refill the system’s reservoirs as recently as 2000. 

• Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico were not using all of their Colorado 

River water supply. 

• Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico also did not need to rely so extensively upon water stored in Lake Powell to protect against demands upon the 

Upper Basin’s other reservoirs to deliver Colorado River water to Mexico under 

the US-Mexican Water Treaty. 

• Until the mid-1990’s, neither Arizona nor Nevada fully used its basic apportionment of Colorado River water, making unused water available for use by 

California. 

Today the Lower Basin states of Arizona, Nevada and California are each using 

their full basic Colorado River apportionments. As a result, there is no ‘‘unused’’ 

water in the Lower Basin. While demand for water has increased, the current 

drought has reduced supply. Thus, the Bureau must more carefully consider optimal 

management of the limited supplies of the Colorado River. 

191

In the recent past, Lower Basin use has exceeded 8.5 maf (one maf over basic apportionment). We project that in future years the Colorado River may not supply 

enough water to meet increasing demands in the three lower basin states. In most 

years, these states will receive only their basic annual entitlement of 7.5 maf. There 

will be future years when extra water is available, but those years will be the exception, not the norm. The Secretary’s Interim Surplus Guidelines, adopted in 2001, do 

not guarantee that surplus water will be available if surface levels in Lake Mead 

are too low. 

River Management in the ‘‘Era of Limits’’

Through its recent workshops and as part of its ongoing consultations with the 

representatives of the Basin States, Reclamation has been considering appropriate 

strategies for the future management of the Colorado. 

How the River is managed impacts all Colorado River water users, particularly 

in the lower basin. Everyone with a right to Colorado River water must carefully 

consider how they manage and use that water. State and Federal law requires that 

it be used reasonably and beneficially. In cases of limited water in storage, as in 

2003, misuse by even one user may have a direct and immediate impact on the 

availability of water for others. 

Improvements in River management made by Reclamation include: 

• enhanced measurement systems will allow for more accurate accounting of 

Colorado River water use as Reclamation prepares its Decree Accounting reports each year—and will also give water users more accurate information on 

which to manage their supplies; 

• newly developed interstate water banking regulations provide a means for 

water users in different states to help each other, which should result in significant water savings each year and help stretch the available water supply to 

meet the Southwest’s growing water demand. 

In addition, Reclamation’s water management activities, undertaken in concert 

with the lower basin states, will continue to include: 

• limiting diversions to authorized uses of Colorado River water; 

• enhanced attention to unauthorized uses of Colorado River water; 

• adherence to water orders and entitlements; 

• public education efforts on the need to manage and conserve the precious and 

limited water supplies of the Colorado. 

Careful Colorado River Management Benefits Everyone 

Information gathered in studies the Bureau conducted show that it is important 

for all Colorado River water users and managers to examine how we use water. We 

need to manage use se we do not excessively deplete reservoirs to the detriment of 

future needs, detrimentally affect the River’s water quality, or diminish the economic well-being of the many communities that depend on the river for water 

supply. 

Reclamation is committed to do its part to help ensure that the waters of the 

Colorado River are managed and used wisely to achieve the greatest benefit possible 

for the many who depend on these waters. 

We will have to work together better than ever before in this new era. Whether 

you are a water manager, a water provider, the grower who waters a crop, or one 

who draws water out of a tap, we all have an important role to play in how the 

Colorado River will be managed and used in the future. Together, we can manage 

the River and our reliance upon it to meet our mutual needs. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much. 

And with us today is Mary Nichols, Secretary of Resources 

Agency. 

Thank you for coming down from Sacramento, Mary, and you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARY NICHOLS, SECRETARY,

CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY 

Ms. NICHOLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

192

You also have my written testimony, and I won’t attempt to summarize it. I just want to make three quick points and look forward 

to your questions and to the discussion. 

The California water policy and program for the last four and a 

half years, since I’ve been Secretary for the Resources Agency 

under Governor Davis, has had three principal elements to it. 

The first, which you, Mr. Chairman, have been a leader in, is the 

CalFed program where the Governor helped forge the final record 

of decision and has been committed to implementing the program, 

and we’re seeking Federal authorization and hopeful that we’ll finally be able to achieve that. 

Second is the QSA, completion of the Colorado River quantification agreement, and the pieces of that agreement which include the 

water transfer, the historic water transfer, from agricultural Imperial County to the San Diego area. 

And the third has been to provide money from the taxpayers of 

the State of California through some historic bond acts, which have 

been passed since we were able to complete the agreements for 

CalFed. And those agreements in turn have led us to an ability to 

go to the voters now three times and to raise billions of dollars to 

invest in California’s own water infrastructure. 

And these three items are, as I think you suggested in the letter 

that you sent, closely related to each other. We believe that it is 

still possible to complete the QSA this year. We are working hard 

to try to bring the parties together and to keep them together to 

make that happen. The state has committed substantial amounts 

of money to help deal with some of the impacts that have been 

caused as a result of environmental issues that were raised during 

the completion of the QSA. 

We believe very strongly that the QSA should reflect the potential for restoration of the Salton Sea because we agree very strongly with the members who’ve said that the sea can’t be ignored and 

that there is a way that we can link a creative alternative for 

maintaining the sea and its valley use to completion of the water 

transfer and the QSA. And we’re committed to working with you 

to help bring that to reality. 

We do see the QSA in context of the historic CalFed agreement 

and process in part because the failure to have a QSA has already 

resulted, as you all know, in action by the Department of Interior 

to reduce California’s ability to have access to surplus water on the 

Colorado River. 

We were disappointed in the way in which that decision was 

made. We feel that the Department has erroneously interpreted its 

obligations to defer to California law on matters of how water is 

used within the State of California and how we judge beneficial 

use. But we recognize that failure to complete the QSA on time was 

a triggering point and that the action that was taken in suspending 

the Guidelines was one that was really unavoidable. 

However, the impact of this is immediately shown by actions of 

the Metropolitan Water District in pursuing other options which 

included in increased purchases of water for Northern California. 

And while we recognize that, again, the long-term future and the 

medium-term future of California lies in increasing numbers and 

volumes of transfers, voluntary transfers between agricultural and 

193

urban users, the connection there between the Southern California 

situation and the problems of the north couldn’t be more clear. 

We were very lucky this year that we have been blessed with 

rain and snow in the north, and so we weren’t dealing with a shortage that had to be allocated. But the interconnection between our 

state is—between all of us in the state is very apparent. 

And so I’m here mainly to pledge to you that we will continue 

to work to try to get the QSA done. We’ll find whatever tools we 

can and look forward to working with you and answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nichols follows:]

Statement of Mary Nichols, Secretary,

Resources Agency, State of California 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

California to participate in today’s field hearing. I am pleased to be here this morning on behalf of Governor Davis. 

As the Subcommittee requested, my testimony today will explain the role that the 

State has played in recent negotiations among the local agency users of Colorado 

River water, focusing on how California expects to cope with the new era of limits 

on the river. From the State’s perspective there is, of course, a close connection between the reliability of Southern California’s water supplies from the Colorado River 

and the region’s needs with respect to the CALFED Bay-Delta program. That is, deficiencies in Colorado River water supplies will have to be made up from other 

sources, the Delta being one of those sources. 

Background 

As members of this Subcommittee are aware, the four involved local water 

agencies—Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County 

Water Authority, Coachella Valley Water District, and Imperial Irrigation District—

were unable to reach agreement on the Quantification Settlement Agreement package at the end of last year. This lack of agreement resulted in Federal suspension 

of the Interim Surplus Guidelines that were in effect in 2002 and had provided 

MWD, the most junior water user of the four, with a full Colorado River Aqueduct 

last year. When former California Department of Water Resources Director Tom 

Hannigan testified before you last year in La Quinta, he described how the Guidelines were intended to provide a soft landing for the local agencies while they carried out actions to reduce their use of river water. The Guidelines increase the likelihood that MWD’s Southern California service area would continue to experience 

a full Colorado River Aqueduct through 2016 via Federal declaration of surplus conditions. 

By suspending the Guidelines, the Department of the Interior reduced the local 

agencies’ 2003 water orders to bring California down to its basic interstate apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet this year. Unfortunately, this action has spawned 

a new round of litigation, as well as putting listed species at the Salton Sea at increased risk of harm. DOI’s action ignored the long-standing principle of Federal 

deference to state water management, and California’s public trust doctrine. Now 

the State is faced with attempting to remove obstacles to QSA execution in the face 

of competition from the ongoing litigation and from the DOI administrative proceedings resulting from the litigation. Despite California’s repeated requests for a 

meeting, it appears DOI is too engaged with its work on the litigation to intensively 

discuss the Federal aspects of conditions that must be met before the QSA execution. As you may be aware, forty-one members of the State Legislature recently 

signed a letter to Secretary Norton requesting that DOI support efforts by the State 

and by the local agencies to finalize the QSA. 

California’s abrupt reduction to 4.4 maf this year is already creating impacts. 

Farmers in the Coachella Valley are paying an additional $15 million for water to 

make up the 2003 cutback, resulting in a doubling of their base water rate for the 

next five years. As MWD testified in the litigation over this year’s water orders, the 

reduced Colorado River water supply ‘‘will manifest itself as real hardships to Metropolitan and its service area. There are no other alternatives available to prevent 

or further minimize these hardships’’. Impacts are also being felt by other Lower 

Basin states, especially Nevada. Las Vegas, a community highly dependent on the 

Colorado River, has also lost its access to surplus water provided by the Guidelines 

in the absence of a QSA. Lack of a QSA, and its related uncertainties, are jeopardVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
194

izing the cooperative spirit with which the Basin States have been working to address Colorado River water management. 

State Role in Recent Negotiations 

Governor Davis, concerned over the loss of surplus water to California in 2003, 

called the local agencies together in Sacramento this past January, to ascertain 

their interest and willingness to continue negotiating the proposed QSA. There was 

concurrence that the attempt should be made. The Governor has accordingly devoted substantial Administration resources to facilitating agreement among the 

agencies. A milestone was reached in March when, after many long hours of effort 

on everyone’s part, the agencies’ negotiators adopted a proposed QSA package to 

recommend to their boards of directors. The proposed package—which included 

drafts of the numerous agreements linked to the QSA as well as the QSA itself—

was presented to DOI and to the Basin States for their review. This step represented a major accomplishment in the QSA process, given the long-standing differences among the agencies. In fact, one Federal representative characterized it as 

Hell having finally frozen over. 

With adoption of the proposed agreement package, attention then turned to addressing the conditions precedent for QSA execution. The conditions include: State 

legislation allowing the ‘‘take’’ of California fully protected species and providing 

funding to support QSA implementation, including the provision of a $150 million 

State loan guarantee; IID grower sign-ups for the conserved water to be transferred 

to SDCWA; settlement and dismissal of IID v. U.S. concurrent with the QSA’s effective date, and; resolution of DOI issues—including payback of past overruns (2001 

and 2002) and a policy for managing future inadvertent overruns—that would allow 

reinstatement of the Guidelines’ surplus water concurrent with the QSA’s effective 

date. I am pleased to report that the relevant bills have been moving through the 

Legislature, the loan guarantee has been arranged, and IID and SDCWA have 

waived the grower sign-ups provision in favor of IID itself standing in as the guarantor. As I alluded to earlier, we have been unable to address with DOI the important issues associated with Federal approval of the QSA, and litigation regarding 

this year’s water orders remains in process. 

The most recent activities associated with fulfilling the conditions precedent have 

stemmed from MWD’s new objections to the use of State funding to support QSA 

implementation, and from desires by a variety of stakeholders to more closely tie 

the QSA and IID-SDCWA water transfer to Salton Sea restoration. We are working 

through these issues now. The Davis Administration strongly supports preserving 

environmental benefits provided by the Salton Sea. Proposition 50 provided $50 million of State bond funding for the sea, and the Governor in his May Revise of the 

budget earmarked $10 million of that amount for a feasibility study of new and potentially promising concepts of restoration. 

Living with Reduced Colorado River Water Supplies 

Unfortunately, California is already living with reduced supplies in 2003, although not in the manner in which we would have hoped. As then-Director 

Hannigan testified to you last year, the desired outcome was that the local agencies 

would have executed the QSA in time to avoid suspension of the Guidelines. The 

Guidelines’ surplus water is one element in California’s draft Colorado River Water 

Use Plan, which describes actions to be taken in the near-term to reduce 

California’s use of river water, and identifies other actions that need further evaluation before they can be implemented. Actions identified for near-term implementation by the local agencies include lining the remaining unlined sections of the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation’s All-American and Coachella Canals (with State-provided 

funding), the proposed IID-SDCWA transfer, and development of groundwater conjunctive use and storage projects. The draft Plan also describes actions that may be 

taken by individual water retailers or water users, especially within urbanized 

Southern California, to reduce their dependence on imported water supplies. These 

actions, including water conservation, water recycling, and groundwater management projects, are eligible for State financial assistance from voter-approved bond 

measures. 

As an aside, I would like to point out that California has made substantial financial assistance available to the local agencies to assist in Plan implementation. Subcommittee members may recall the $235 million in State general funds authorized 

for lining parts of the All American and Coachella Canals and for MWD’s groundwater storage projects. Additional financial assistance provided by recent State bond 

measures is available to help agencies in Southern California improve reliability of 

their local supplies and reduce their reliance on Colorado River water. Statewide, 

the 1996 Proposition 204 made available $85 million for water recycling, groundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
195

water recharge, and water conservation loans and grants. Proposition 13 in 2000 

provided $395 million for water recycling, groundwater recharge and storage, and 

water conservation loans and grants, as well as $235 million for Santa Ana River 

watershed grants (including groundwater reclamation/water conservation/water recycling). Last year’s Proposition 50 provides $461 million specifically to Southern 

California, for drinking water projects to help agencies reduce Colorado River use 

and for integrated regional water management projects. Proposition 50 also provides 

$825 million for CALFED implementation—funding that will help firm up the reliability of State Water Project supplies to Southern California. 

Many of the measures in California’s draft Colorado River Water Use Plan, however, are not likely to be implemented in the absence of a QSA, at least not without 

prolonged litigation. For example, proposed agricultural to urban water transfers 

such as the MWD-Palo Verde Irrigation District transfer could not be implemented 

without further detailing of the agencies’ rights and priority use of Colorado River 

water. The now-in-force Seven Party Agreement of 1931 makes only a partial division of California’s interstate apportionment of Colorado River water and does not 

fully quantify the 3.85 MAF of water contained in its first, second, and third priorities and allocated to the agricultural agencies. 

MWD, the most junior of the involved California agencies involved in the QSA negotiations, asserts that it can continue to deliver reliable water to its service area 

absent a QSA. However, State legislation enacted last year that linked city and 

county land use decision-making to water supply availability raises the bar with respect to demonstration of long-term assured supplies. Wetter conditions in Northern 

California this year allowed for nearly full SWP deliveries to Southern California, 

helping lessen some short-term impacts. A year-to-year reliance on full SWP supplies or water transfers from Northern California, however, is not a key to long-term 

reliability for Southern California. 

Conclusions 

We remain convinced that a QSA that takes into account Salton Sea restoration 

options is California’s best course for living in an era of limits on the Colorado 

River. We are very close, and we are optimistic that the local agencies will be able 

to work through the remaining issues standing between QSA implementation and 

us. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Davis administration is committed 

to helping the local agencies ensure that benefits provided by the Interim Surplus 

Guidelines can be returned to California. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

With us with the upper basin state, representing the upper 

basin, is Mr. Larry Anderson, Director of the Utah Division of 

Water Resources. 

STATEMENT OF D. LARRY ANDERSON, UTAH COMMISSIONER, 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR, 

UTAH DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. 

It’s an honor for me to be here today. 

The Colorado River is an important economic recreational and 

environmental resource for the citizens of the upper basin. A significant portion of the basin’s economy revolves around and is supported by the use of the Colorado River and its tributaries for 

power generation, recreation, irrigation, as well as municipal and 

industrial water for many of our growing communities. 

With the goal of protecting the upper basin states’ current and 

future uses of the Colorado River, Utah joined with the other six 

basin states in responding to the request by the Secretary of the 

Interior to develop a plan by which the short-term needs of the 

lower division states, specifically California, could be met during a 

transition period while California developed and implemented a 

plan to reduce its normal uses of Colorado River water to 4.4 milVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
196

lion acre feet, which is the amount allowed under the Law of the 

River. 

After several years of discussions and negotiations among the 

seven basin states, a consensus plan was developed. The plan resulted in the development of the Colorado River Interim Surplus 

Guidelines, as adopted in the Secretary of Interior’s record of decision, dated January of 2001. 

The Surplus Guidelines allowed the Secretary to provide water 

to meet municipal and industrial uses in the lower basin, again, 

particularly in California, during the interim period of 2001 to 

2016. The Colorado River reservoirs were projected to be relatively 

full because the upper basin states demands are currently less 

than allocated to them by the Law of the River. 

The Interim Surplus Guidelines allowed California 15 years to 

implement conservation programs to reduce its annual demand of 

Colorado River water from its current use of 5.2 million acre-feet 

to its apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet, a reduction of 800 

acre-feet annually. 

During this 15-year timeframe, the other basin states agreed to 

give California an increased assurance the surpluses will be declared that municipal and industrial water demands will be met 

during the transition period. It has been referred to as a soft landing for the California’s Colorado River water agencies. 

Of great interest and concern to the basin states are the problems California’s Colorado River water agencies have had in reaching an agreement on the QSA, which is a necessary step the 

California water users must take to meet the requirements of the 

Interim Surplus Guidelines. We fully expected California to have 

this plan in place and finalized by December 31st of 2002, with all 

necessary agreements, compliance documents and a QSA. The 

deadline for finalizing the agreement was not met. We were disappointed that California agencies would let this happen. 

The QSA will make it possible for California to reduce its use of 

Colorado River water, as well as make it possible to convert or 

transfer agricultural water to M&I uses for Southern California. 

While we are very concerned over the bickering between the water 

users, we still anticipate and expect the agencies to solve these 

problems and complete the QSA. 

Permanent quantification of California’s agricultural use of 

Colorado River water was a basic premise for the other basin states 

to support the Guidelines. The QSA will protect all other Colorado 

River Basin water users from additional demands from California 

and is the principal protection sought by the other basin states. 

In conclusion, the State of Utah continues to support the Interim 

Surplus Guidelines and the finalization of a permanent QSA by 

California. All due diligence needs to be exercised by California’s 

Colorado River agencies to implement the QSA. A successful agreement will reduce major causes of contention in the basin. 

But as long as California’s Colorado River agencies fail to complete an acceptable QSA, we expect the Secretary of Interior to continue the suspension of the Interim Surplus Guidelines and limit 

California’s use of Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre-feet annually. 

Thank you very much. 

197

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

Statement of D. Larry Anderson, Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado 

River Commission, and Director, Utah Division of Water Resources 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERIM SURPLUS GUIDELINES 

The Colorado River falls more than 12,000 feet as it flows from the Rocky Mountains to its outlet in the Gulf of California. The river has a huge drainage basin 

that covers over 244,000 square miles. The seven Colorado River Basin States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) comprise about 

one-twelfth of the area of the continental United States. Despite the size of the watershed, the Colorado River ranks only sixth among the nation’s rivers in volume 

of flow, with an average annual undepleted flow in excess of 17.5 million acre-feet 

(MAF) (15 MAF at Lee Ferry, the compact division point). Demands on the Colorado 

River are not limited to needs within the basin. In fact, more water is exported from 

the basin than from any other river in the country. The river provides municipal 

and industrial water for more than 24 million people living in the major metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, Albuquerque, 

and hundreds of other smaller communities in the seven states. It also provides irrigation water to about 2.0 million acres of land. The river has over 60 MAF of storage capacity and 4,000 megawatts of hydroelectric generating capacity. The river is 

often described as the most regulated river in the world. Considering its importance 

to the basin states, Native American Indian Tribes and Mexico, the agreements that 

have been reached to divide the river’s water must be considered of the utmost importance. 

Most of the flow of the Colorado River originates high in the mountains of the 

Upper Basin States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Colorado 

River is an important economic, recreational, and environmental resource for the 

citizens of the Upper Basin States. A significant portion of the economy of the Upper 

Basin States revolves around and is supported by the use of the Colorado River and 

its tributaries for power generation, irrigation, and tourism as well as a water 

supply for growing populations. Thus we are intimately involved and vitally concerned with the management of the Colorado River. 

The Law Of The River 

Because of the critical role of water in the arid west, the Colorado River has been 

the subject of extensive negotiations and litigation. This has resulted in the development of a complex set of Federal laws, compacts, court decisions, treaties, state laws 

and other agreements collectively known as ‘‘The Law of the River’’. The principal 

documents forming ‘‘The Law of the River’’ include: 

• The Colorado River Compact of 1922; 

• The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928; 

• The Mexican Treaty of 1944; 

• The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948; 

• The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956; 

• The U.S. Supreme Court’s Arizona v. California decision and decree of 1964; 

• The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968; 

• Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs of 

1970; 

• Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission of 1973; 

• The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974; 

• The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992; 

• Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines of 2001

In addition to these documents, several other Federal and state laws impact the 

use of the river. Some of these are: California’s Self Limitation Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Currently a key document is the yet to be completed 

California Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement which revises and 

quantifies the water use priorities in California of its Colorado River water allocation. 

Interim Surplus Guidelines 

One of the most important issues in the Colorado River Basin today is the increased municipal and industrial water demands in the Lower Division States of Arizona, California, and Nevada versus their available water supply as allocated by 

‘‘The Law of the River’’. Unless and until the Lower Division States take the necessary steps to live within their basic entitlement of 7.5 MAF per year, there will 

continue to be contention in the basin. With the goal in mind of reducing basin wide 

198

contention and enhancing the Upper Basin States’ ability to develop and use more 

of their Colorado River water without impacting the Lower Division States, Utah 

joined with the other Six Basin States in responding to a call from the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop a plan by which the short term needs of the Lower Division States, specifically California, could be met during a transition period while 

California develops and implements a plan to limit its use of Colorado River water 

to the amount allowed under ‘‘The Law of the River’’. After months of intense discussions and negotiations among the Seven Basin States, a consensus plan was developed. This consensus plan resulted in the development of the Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines (Guidelines) as adopted in the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Record of Decision (ROD) dated January of 2001. 

The Surplus Guidelines allow the Secretary to provide water to meet municipal 

and industrial (M&I) uses in the Lower Basin, particularly in California, during an 

interim period 2001- 2016 (while Upper Basin States water demands are at less 

than full development). Water users in California have been using approximately 

5.2 MAF annually over the past 20 years, 800,000 acre-feet more each year than 

their basic apportionment as determined in Arizona v. California. The Guidelines 

allow California 15 years to implement conservation programs to reduce its demand 

for Colorado River water from 5.2 MAF to its compact allocation of 4.4 MAF. During 

this 15-year time frame, the other Basin States have agreed to give California a 

greater assurance that annual surpluses will be declared and M&I water demands 

will be met from reservoir storage during this transition period. 

These Guidelines are structured in such a way as to also provide protection to the 

other Six Basin States against the potential impacts of dry hydrology during the 

next 15 years. This protection will reduce the allowable California M&I water demands that can be met by surpluses as the reservoirs are lowered because of 

drought. The Upper Basin States have continued to support the consensus reached 

by the Seven Basin States. We strongly urge and expect the Federal Government 

and the Secretary of the Interior to continue to follow through on the commitments 

of all parties including enforcement of the provisions of the Interim Surplus Guidelines if California does not meet the benchmarks set forth in the Guidelines and the 

ROD. It is critically important that California make the anticipated progress in reducing its annual Colorado River water use over the fifteen- year interim period. 

We, the Upper Basin States, strongly believe that appropriate enforcement is critical to protecting our rights to the water allocated to our states under ‘‘The Law 

of the River’’. It was only on this basis that the other six states agreed to the provisions that were incorporated into the now promulgated Interim Surplus Guidelines. 

California Water Use Plan for the Colorado River and the Quantification Settlement 

Agreement 

Of great interest and concern to all the Colorado River Basin States is the success 

of California in developing a way to live within its 4.4 MAF allocation, which is inextricably linked to the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD. This includes the necessary steps California water users must take to meet the requirements of the 

Guidelines ROD. The Upper Basin States have supported, and tried to facilitate 

through the Guidelines, California’s development of a way to get down to 4.4 million 

acre-feet of annual use. We fully expected California to have this plan in place and 

finalized by December 31, 2002, with all necessary agreements and compliance documents executed. When the December 2002 deadline for the finalization of 

California’s agreements, including the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) 

was not met, we wholeheartedly encouraged and supported the Secretary of the Interior in her suspension of surplus deliveries under the provisions of the Interim 

Surplus Guidelines. Her decision was in keeping with the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD. 

The QSA is the overarching agreement that will make it possible for California 

to reduce its use of Colorado River water. While we are concerned over the bickering 

between the California Colorado River water agencies, we still anticipate and expect 

these agencies to solve their problems and complete the QSA, as the viability of the 

Guidelines hangs in the balance. Permanent quantification of California’s agricultural use of Colorado River water was one of the basic premises of the other Six 

Basin States for negotiating and supporting the Guidelines. This quantification will 

protect all other Colorado River Basin water users from additional demands from 

California and is the principle protection sought by the Basin States. The Upper 

Basin States have and still encourage Congress and Federal agencies to provide 

support for and facilitate these agreements wherever appropriate, and if necessary, 

expedite any required Federal review processes. 

The inter-related issues of Colorado River water use in California and the Salton 

Sea protection and restoration efforts have complicated this matter. While the 

199

Salton Sea has become an important wildlife habitat, it also should be recognized 

the Salton Sea is a manmade habitat dependent upon agricultural inefficiency and 

resultant return flow. Any water dedicated for use in the Salton Sea will have to 

come from existing water uses in the area, which may conflict with the transfer of 

agricultural water to municipal use. Given the relationship between the Salton Sea 

and the QSA, the impacts of these efforts need to be carefully evaluated and separated. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I state the strong support of the State of Utah for the Interim Surplus Guidelines and the finalization of a permanent QSA by California. Our support 

has been demonstrated in the close working relationship of all seven of the Colorado 

River Basin States in the development of the Guidelines and our continued efforts 

in the arena of the Seven Basin States’ discussions concerning the Colorado River, 

the QSA and the issues surrounding the Salton Sea. California’s plans for the 

Colorado River and the QSA are inextricably linked to the Guidelines. All due diligence needs to be exercised by California’s Colorado River water agencies, Congress, 

Federal agencies, and the other Six Basin States to achieve the worthy goal of implementing this plan and consummating the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 

As long as California’s Colorado River water agencies fail to complete an acceptable 

QSA, we expect the Secretary of Interior to continue the suspension of the Interim 

Surplus Guidelines and limit California’s water use to 4.4 MAF per year. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentleman. 

And with us from the lower basin states is Herb Guenther, the 

Director of Arizona Department of Water Resources. 

STATEMENT OF HERB GUENTHER, DIRECTOR,

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

Mr. GUENTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, ladies and 

gentlemen in the audience. 

I am also pleased to be here to testify before the Committee. The 

issue has been defined many times over. I’m sure you’re more than 

familiar with it. My testimony addresses both the water bank and 

the ISG as it relates to the importance to the basin states. 

Suffice it to say, we are extremely interested in putting these 

cats back in a bag somewhere and bringing this issue to closure. 

I think it is perhaps the most important water issue that we will 

deal with in this young 2001 first decade. 

This is an opportunity that will be gone if we do not cease it 

within the next several months. And the reason I say that is because the world will become much more complicated as we approach the 2004 era as the Presidential political scene becomes 

more intense. 

I believe that the QSA that is currently proposed is very near acceptance by all parties. If we can just put the final touches to it, 

if we are successful in getting the financing for the issues that need 

that financing, I believe we can bring this to closure before Thanksgiving. 

I am very optimistic that not only can the basin states, the six 

remaining basin states outside of California, resolve our outstanding issues—and they’re minor, but they will require some 

work. And they deal with primarily foul ramps, conversion from 

fouling to actual solid conservation measures, and the like. I think 

those are all virtual issues and very easy once we sit down and talk 

about them. 

At the same time I met with Assistant Secretary Raley last week 

before he went into the Grand Canyon, and he has also agreed to 

200

participate so that members of this department can come to closure 

on their remaining outstanding issues which deal with the Secretarial Implementation Agreement. Again, we’re very confident 

those issues are virtual. 

So we look forward to working feverishly at this time to try to 

solve the remaining outstanding issues both in the basin states and 

with the Secretary, and then we will be prepared to move forward 

at such time as all the conditions present are met, including the 

funding. 

It is a complex matter as you’re well aware. The QSA is necessary to activate the ISG. The QSA is also necessary to get the 

Secretarial Implementation Agreement to activate the Interim Surplus Guidelines. After the Interim Surplus Guidelines are activated, then the Metropolitan Water District in Arizona will have 

to enter into an Interim Surplus Guidelines agreement which will 

allow Arizona to forgo their rights to 46 percent of surplus flows, 

make those available to Arizona—or California and Nevada. And, 

in exchange, we have a shortage sharing agreement for up to one 

million acre-feet with the Metropolitan Water District. 

We look forward to a QSA that activates the SIA, which then will 

activate the ISG and will lead to the ISGA. We should be momentarily—we should enjoy momentary tranquility on the system. 

I know the Salton Sea, as Congresswoman Bono has said, is the 

keystone to our difficulties which we’ve been having with this potential QSA. I would actually say it’s been the controlling interest 

in this establishment of the QSA. It is a very complex and challenging issue both politically and biologically. 

And I believe eventually and ultimately it will come down to a 

benefit/cost analysis as to what actually can be done to salvage all 

or part of the Salton Sea. 

So from the lower basin states’ standpoint, we stand ready to assist the agencies in California. We stand ready to work with the 

other basin states. We stand ready to work with the Secretary of 

the Interior to resolve any remaining outstanding issues and bring 

this issue to a successful conclusion. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guenther follows:]

Statement of Herb Guenther, Director,

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

As the Director of the Department of Water Resources, I represent the State of 

Arizona regarding Colorado River issues. Arizona holds a contract with the Secretary of the Interior for 2.8 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. The 

Colorado River provides the largest dependable water supply for our long-term 

growth and development. Our largest water project is the Central Arizona Project, 

which imports over 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to central Arizona. 

The water is used to supply municipal customers, Indian Tribes and irrigated agriculture. Many of our cities are, or will be, completely dependant on the Colorado 

River to meet their dependable water supply needs. However, the Central Arizona 

Project has the lowest priority water right in the lower Colorado River Basin. That 

means that Arizona is very concerned about future shortages. We cannot tolerate 

long-term over use by other states that will deplete the water supplies stored in 

Lake Mead. 

We also understand that the probability of shortages will increase dramatically 

in future years as the upper basin states develop their water uses. To avoid catastrophic shortages to our cities in the future, Arizona has begun to recharge, or 

bank, Colorado River to save water for the dry years ahead. 

201

Arizona has very deep aquifers and conditions favorable for recharge. When water 

is available, we extend the opportunity Nevada and California to recharge water for 

later recovery to meet those states’ needs. So far, Arizona has banked approximately 

80,000 acre-feet for the Southern California Metropolitan Water District and over 

100,000 acre-feet for Nevada. 

Water banking is expanding in Arizona as we study the means to bank water to 

help resolve Indian water rights settlements. We are now engaged in planning for 

the potential use of the water bank for more than municipal water shortages. 

Water banking is an essential water management strategy for Arizona and our 

neighboring states. Even so, the amount of water and storage sites is limited, causing Arizona to carefully evaluate the priorities of use. 

Several years ago, Arizona entered into discussions with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, water agencies in Southern California and the states of Nevada, Colorado, 

New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming about reducing California’s water uses from nearly 

5.4 million acre-feet of use to 4.4 million acre-feet of use that is the normal apportionment of water for California. Due to the water rights priority system in 

California known as the Seven-Party Agreement, the Metropolitan Water District 

(MWD) would have had to reduce its Colorado River use by more than half to meet 

the overall reductions in water use for the State of California. Metropolitan believed 

that their customers and member water agencies would be severely impacted by 

such reductions. Metropolitan asked for a time of transition, a ‘‘soft landing’’, to 

quantify water rights and make arrangements for water transfers from the higher 

priority agricultural water districts to MWD. To implement a transition plan, the 

Secretary of the Interior had to determine that surplus water was available to ‘‘overdeliver’’ water to MWD. 

Arizona and the other basin states agreed to make interim surplus water available to Southern California if the California water agencies committed to a defined, 

enforceable program to reduce their dependence on Colorado River water over their 

basic entitlement, in a way that avoids undue risk of shortage and other impacts 

to the other Basin States. One of the keys to such a program is the quantification 

of the agricultural priorities in Southern California, which is necessary to serve as 

a baseline from which any transfers from agricultural priorities to the Metropolitan 

Water District and San Diego could take place. Another key is the degree of certainty that the plan will be implemented, so the States can be assured California 

will be prepared to live within its apportionment at the end of the interim period. 

Based on California’s willingness to quantify its water rights and implement a reduction program, the Secretary adopted Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG). To make 

the ISG work as intended, Arizona had to agree to waive its rights to some surplus 

deliveries of water that would have been available to us under the ‘‘law of the river’’. 

Arizona did so to help California accomplish its ‘‘soft landing’’. However, surplus deliveries and Arizona’s waiver of surplus water rights were contingent upon adoption 

of the California Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The Southern 

California water agencies did not execute an acceptable QSA by the end of 2002, 

causing the suspension of water deliveries pursuant to the ISG, and expiration of 

Arizona’s waiver to surplus water. 

As a result of the suspension of surplus under the ISG, MWD and Southern Nevada may suffer a shortage of water supplies this year. In response to this shortage, 

MWD and Nevada have requested withdrawals of water from the Arizona Water 

Bank. If the ISG surpluses are not reinstated, we will expect that MWD and Nevada will request to use the Arizona Water Bank during the Interim Period to offset 

the loss of surplus water. The ability to bank water is limited, and Arizona has to 

preserve capacity and water for its citizens, including Indian tribes before it can expand the banking for other states. 

It is essential for California to execute the QSA to bring stability to water management in the lower Colorado River basin. 

The Governors’ representatives of the six basin states, have reviewed the most recent set of draft agreements constituting the QSA between California’s Colorado 

River water contractors, which the California agencies presented to us in March of 

2003. The Southern California water agencies have requested our comments concerning the current draft QSA. We continue to support the ISG as the mutually 

agreed upon means of providing California the ‘‘soft landing’’ it requested in order 

to implement the California Plan. Our support for the ISG is contingent on the development and implementation of a QSA and its required appurtenant agreements 

among the California agencies. If the QSA is executed, Arizona stands ready to sign 

an agreement to waive its rights to surplus for the Interim Period. 

We encourage the State of California to continue its efforts with the four southern 

California agencies to negotiate and settle the quantification and transfer agreements. We also encourage the California legislature to authorize funds and enact 

202

enabling legislation necessary for the implementation of the QSA and the California 

Plan. 

It is very important for the proper administration of the Colorado River Basin 

that long-term agreements be adopted, leading to permanent solutions for sharing 

of the limited water supplies within California. We also believe that strong commitments by the southern California agencies to the California Plan will minimize the 

need for the Secretary of the Interior to exercise secretarial authorities under the 

Law of the River. 

The six states do, however, have concerns with some provisions in the current 

draft QSA, as proposed in March 2003. For these reasons, the basin states have created a small group to work directly with the California agencies to resolve issues 

we have with the current draft agreements. We hope the Secretary will join us as 

we attempt to resolve all outstanding issues. Arizona is certain that the remaining 

issues can be solved to the satisfaction of all concerned. We are committed to continuing the mutual working relationship we have with the state of California, its 

water agencies and the Department of the Interior. The history of that relationship 

has been the successful resolution of many difficult issues we have faced on the 

Colorado River. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you, Herb. And I think the Middle East peace negotiations are complex. 

Next with us is Lloyd Allen, the President and Board of Directors 

of the Imperial Irrigation District. 

You’ll be recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LLOYD ALLEN, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

Mr. ALLEN. Chairman Calvert, Congressman Hunter, members of 

the Subcommittee, my name’s Lloyd Allen. I’m a farmer in Imperial Valley. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you all about the 

status of the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 

Thank you, Daisy. 

As you know, this is of critical importance to the people of Imperial Valley. And I didn’t know whether I was going to grow any 

wheat this year or not when I got that first turkey, but I did, and 

I have a damn good crop. Thank you. We greatly appreciate your 

efforts to focus the attention on the QSA. 

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Calvert, Congressman Hunter, and members of the Committee who work real, 

real hard to bring peace on the river through the implementation 

of the QSA. 

I prepared a written statement. It’s over there somewhere. You 

can have it, and I’ll leave it with you. However, I’d like to take this 

opportunity to say a few words and comments on the importance 

of this hearing and the need for decisive action and leadership from 

the Subcommittee. 

Preliminarily, it is important for you and the Subcommittee to 

understand that the IID is fully committed to the QSA. We have, 

in fact, approved the QSA in its present form. We know that other 

basin states and the Department of Interior may have suggestions, 

maybe some changes. And we don’t have it as a take it or leave 

it. We’re willing to work it, regarding QSA deal terms. And we’re, 

therefore, prepared for face-to-face meetings with the State’s Interior and California parties on this issue. 

However, it’s important for you to appreciate that we have thus 

far been able to get Interior to negotiate the negotiating team. The 

Interior favors placing its efforts in the direction of the 417. ProVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
203

ceedings have explained to us that it cannot ever take both tasks 

in one time. That sounds not too very good to me, because I was 

in (inaudible) and California at the same time. Interior has also obviously chosen sides in this inter-California dispute, favoring urban 

Southern California interests over interests of agriculture. 

Be that as it may, the time has come to put our efforts in settlement negotiations regardless of the slant of the playing field. If we 

are to succeed with implementation of the QSA, the Interior’s attitude must change. The Interior must bring its outstanding QSA 

issues to the negotiating table so that the interested parties may 

address those issues and bring the QSA to completion. 

It is also critical that cooler heads prevail in the context of the 

417. I think you can appreciate that this is just the beginning of 

what is likely to be a far-reaching imperfect confrontational litigation. IID urges all parties, including the U.S. Government, not to 

go in that direction. Your leadership is needed to facilitate the filing of a motion jointly from the IID and the Federal Government 

to stay proceedings with the Federal court in San Diego. We remain convinced that the court will welcome such a motion and will 

support the parties in working on a settlement as opposed to promoting administrative and judicial litigation. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, your leadership and influence in this 

Subcommittee are needed in order to convince our neighbors at 

MWD to support the QSA. MWD has followed a very confusing 

path in recent months, and such action has contributed to a lack 

of confidence in the QSA in some circles. While this is indeed unfortunate, the majority of interested parties continue to recognize 

the QSA is in the best interest of the State of California and the 

six basin states in the California water agencies including MWD. 

In my written testimony, I explain three recommendations I feel 

critical to ensure success of the QSA: We need face-to-face negotiations among the water agencies, Interior, and other states, including California, to begin immediately. A motion to stay proceedings 

must be filed by the United States and IID in the Federal court in 

San Diego. This Subcommittee should hold periodic oversight hearings during the next several months in order to ensure implementation of the QSA. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve lived and farmed in the Imperial Valley for 

many years, and I’ve witnessed two other situations of difficulty 

and challenges that have confronted our community. Whether it be 

past market conditions, hostility of the Federal Government, and 

100 years of the history of our community has successfully faced 

these challenges, and we are prepared to do so, the same, in this 

situation. 

My long years of experience have demonstrated to me that when 

it’s possible, settlement is preferred when trying to protect against 

confrontational litigation. A settlement that is beneficial to all interested parties is within reach. We simply need to join forces to 

make progress and set aside our differences. Bring in our mitigation lawyers, and allow common sense and public good to prevail. 

I sincerely hope that with your assistance we will succeed. 

I have with me today John Carter, IID’s chief leading counsel, 

and together we’re prepared to answer any questions you may 

204

have. Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to working for you. 

And it’s pretty damn hot at our home, and it’s nice to be here 

in San Diego. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

Statement of Lloyd Allen, President, Board of Directors,

Imperial Irrigation District 

Chairman Calvert, Congressman Hunter, and members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Lloyd Allen and I am President of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 

Board of Directors. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about the status of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). As you know, this is a matter of critical importance to the people of the Imperial Valley, and therefore we 

greatly appreciate your efforts to focus attention on the QSA. Let me also take this 

opportunity to thank Chairman Calvert, Congressman Hunter, and others who have 

worked tirelessly in their efforts to bring peace to the river through the implementation of the QSA. 

To appropriately outline the history of the development of the QSA, and to follow 

the often times tortuous route that has brought us to where we are today, would 

take many pages of testimony. In the interest of time and brevity, I will not take 

that approach but will instead attempt to focus on a few central points that I think 

are critical to understanding the present circumstances. I will also provide several 

recommendations that I believe will ensure success. 

Although we have been at what seems to be the ‘‘eleventh hour’’ for the QSA several times in the past, I truly believe that we are now facing the critical point where 

the QSA must be implemented, with broad-based support, or the protracted and farreaching litigation that has commenced will pass the point of no return. While IID 

is fully prepared to protect its senior water rights in the courts, the halls of Congress, and elsewhere, we believe that the wiser course is settlement through implementation of the QSA. This is a time for leadership, diplomacy, dedication to the 

public interest, and good old common sense. 

This is also a time of general confusion and misinformation because the QSA is 

so complicated and several interested parties are pursuing courses of action that are 

difficult to understand. With that background in mind, I would like to briefly outline 

several points that I believe are important to understanding the present circumstances. 

First, I believe that there continues to be mistrust directed toward IID, and some 

parties even suggest that IID cannot be trusted to ‘‘do the deal.’’ As to this point 

let me be emphatically clear: the IID Board of Directors has already approved the 

QSA and as President of the Board I have signed the relevant documents, including 

the long-term transfer agreement with San Diego. In other words, IID supports the 

QSA, IID has approved the QSA, and IID stands ready to address with any interested parties continuing concerns about the terms of the QSA. 

Some parties have recently suggested that IID’s position is one of ‘‘take it or leave 

it’’ in regard to the QSA documents that have been approved and executed. That 

is not a correct statement. While IID would prefer to have the QSA documents remain largely as presently structured, so as to avoid further public hearings in the 

Imperial Valley and then another vote of the Board, we have never in any way suggested that this is a take it or leave it deal. 

We appreciate that other basin states and the Department of the Interior (Interior) may suggest modifications to some of the terms in the documents. IID is fully 

prepared to engage those discussions and to take appropriate action in the event 

of a substantive change in the deal terms. I make note, however, of the obvious—

the more onerous the changes in the direction of IID the more we face potential political difficulties within our community. But that is the same with other parties as 

well and we are therefore nevertheless prepared to proceed as long as all interested 

parties appreciate the political risks. 

Second, some parties have suggested that IID should dismiss its suit against the 

United States government so as to show good faith in the direction of completing 

the QSA. Again, let me be perfectly clear: IID is prepared to dismiss its suit against 

the Federal Government as soon as the Part 417 proceeding is dismissed and the 

QSA has been executed. Let me emphasize—IID is not interested in protracted and 

confrontational litigation. But IID will not abandon its legal defenses while it is 

under attack and it is not reasonable to ask or expect us to do that. 

Let me also state that IID has been and remains fully prepared to negotiate with 

Interior, the basin states, and other interested parties at the same time that IID 

205

defends itself in the ongoing 417 proceeding. Such action puts an enormous strain 

on the limited IID budget, but we recognize that time is of the essence and there 

is no other alternative. We respectfully suggest that all other parties, including the 

powerful United States government with huge resources, must be compelled to follow the same approach. 

Third, this Subcommittee, other Members of Congress, and the White House 

should all be focused on facilitating face-to-face negotiations over remaining deal 

terms for the QSA. Since the first of the year IID has had only one meeting with 

Interior and the Department of Justice, which was not on the substance of the QSA. 

Mr. Chairman, since time is of the essence it is not helpful for me to mince words 

or beat around the bush—IID and the QSA parties have been stiff-armed by Interior 

in this process. We have been the victims of a concerted effort by Interior to ignore 

the QSA in favor of the 417 proceeding. If noting else comes out of this hearing, 

it will be a success if you and others in Congress help us to achieve face-to-face negotiations with Interior and others so as to complete the QSA. 

Fourth, it is indeed unfortunate that for reasons that are largely unknown Interior has decided to choose sides in this struggle between the southern California 

water agencies. California has not sought to avoid the 4.4 million acre-feet (maf) 

limitation. The internal dispute is over how to divide the 4.4 MAF apportionment. 

Interior has chosen to side with the junior right holders whose demands for water 

has increased with urban sprawl and population growth. 

In contrast, it is interesting to note that while the Babbitt Administration took 

actions that were contrary to the interests of IID, their representatives also maintained a measure of risk for the other agencies. As a result, the negotiation playing 

filed remained largely level. The Norton Administration, however, has decided to 

support the southern California urban interests against IID, and therefore the incentives to remain at the settlement table have been disrupted. MWD now questions 

the viability of the QSA especially when Interior seems to be suggesting that it will 

aid MWD in trying to take water from IID with no regard for compensation, environmental compliance, and other important factors. Again, this is where your Subcommittee and the other members of Congress can provide direction and leadership—the Secretary is supposed to be a neutral water master, not a spear-carrier 

for MWD. 

Fifth, it is difficult for all of us, including the other basin states, to fully understand the positions advanced by MWD in recent weeks and months. For example, 

I suggest you put yourself in the position of another basin state who was told a few 

years ago that MWD desperately needed the Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG) 

water over the fifteen year 4.4 California water-diet transition period, only to be told 

recently by MWD that the ISG water is really of very little importance. Similarly, 

others of us are trying to make sense out of MWD’s current passion for protecting 

the fiscal well being of the State of California. 

In the end IID suggests that this Subcommittee and other interested parties 

should be more focused on the State of California. The 4.4 MAF is California’s apportionment to the river, and therefore the state has strongly stepped forward in 

recent months to protect the overall interests of its citizens. The state has repeatedly emphasized the statewide importance of the QSA, the importance of peace 

among the agencies, and the importance of the reinstatement of the ISG special surplus water. As I emphasized above, this is a situation where leadership will be critical and it is IID’s view that the combined leadership of this Subcommittee, other 

members of Congress, and the State of California will cause the QSA to be implemented in the end, with the cooperation of MWD. 

Sixth, let me emphasize the relevance of the Federal and state environmental 

laws in this whole process. Over the past four or five years IID and the other QSA 

parries have struggled endlessly with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NEPA, the 

Clean Air Act, and other laws in our efforts to bring the QSA to completion. We 

all know by now that if water use within IID is cut back there will be a corresponding impact in the amount of water going to the Salton Sea. This impact, we 

are told by state and Federal wildlife agencies, requires consultation and mitigation 

under the ESA because of the effect on listed species, and will require compliance 

with other laws in regard to air quality and other matters. 

Curiously, however, Interior is now on a path to cutback IID’s water use by probably several hundred thousand acre feet per year (via the 417 proceeding), but Interior has done nothing in the direction of environmental compliance to support that 

action. Now, this course of action might be attributable to Federal agency arrogance 

and a notion that Interior simply does not need to pay attention to the environmental laws, or Interior has cobbled together a legal argument as to why under 

these circumstances it need not comply with these important Federal laws. Whichever is the case, IID suggests that this Subcommittee should investigate this issue 

206

carefully and thoroughly. Maybe it goes without saying, but many interested parties 

are likely to disagree with Interior on either point of justification, and therefore we 

can rest assured that this action, too, will lead to protracted and confrontational litigation. That is not, we suggest, the sensible and productive path to follow. 

Finally, I would like to mention the unfortunate tension that we are experiencing 

at this eleventh hour within the basin states. While most of the states have expressed support, and even exceedingly strong support in some cases, for the need 

to place emphasis on the completion of the QSA while slowing down or stopping the 

417 proceeding, our neighbors in Colorado have expressed somewhat contrary views. 

I think it is exceedingly important to recognize the unique position of the State of 

Colorado at this point in time: Colorado provides on average about 70% of the water 

in the Colorado River; nevertheless, Colorado has a smaller apportionment than the 

State of California; Colorado has been impacted significantly by the recent drought 

while those of us below the giant reservoirs have had the blessing of carry-over storage; and Colorado is in the process of exploring the ways and means to fully utilize 

its Colorado River apportionment. 

The reasons that impact on a basin state’s positions in any given situation can 

be complex and sometimes parochial. Nevertheless, in recent years we have seen a 

new paradigm of cooperation among the basin states, and an effort to coordinate to 

the degree possible for the common good. In this situation we urge this Subcommittee to reach out to the State of Colorado in an effort to fully understand its 

concerns and to address those concerns to the degree possible. IID firmly believes 

that the QSA is in the best interest of the QSA parties, the State of California, and 

the other six other basin states including Colorado. It would be exceedingly helpful 

to have Colorado lend its support to the successful completion of this process. 

On the basis of these points of understanding let me provide the following recommendations to ensure successful completion of the QSA: 

1. That this Subcommittee facilitates a series of face-to-face negotiation meetings 

to be attended by the QSA parties, representatives of the basin states, and Interior 

and the Department of Justice. Interior and all other parties should be requested 

to put forth all of the QSA issues that they believe must be addressed so as to move 

the agreements to execution. 

2. That the United States and IID jointly file a motion to stay proceedings with 

the Federal court in San Diego. The purpose of the motion would be to have the 

court recognize and understand the seriousness of the QSA settlement effort, and 

have the court approve Interior’s temporary stay of the 417 proceeding in an effort 

to finish work on the QSA implementation. 

3. That this Subcommittee schedules a series of oversight hearings to be conducted over the next several months so as to monitor progress on the completion 

of the QSA. All of the interested parties should be compelled to attend and report 

on their progress in implementing the QSA. 

Mr. Chairman, it may be a somewhat tired phrase but it is true—water is the 

lifeblood of my community. Along with the other IID Board members I am dutybound to protect IID’s senior vested water rights, and I can assure you that IID will 

do everything within its power to defend its interests—up to the highest court of 

the land. But I can also tell you that I have been around a long time and I have 

seen the results of courtroom battles and other forms of confrontation. When it is 

possible, I prefer settlement over litigation—and that is the current position of the 

IID Board. 

IID stands ready to assist in any way possible to ensure that the QSA is implemented as soon as possible. I appreciate the tensions that exist between IID and 

Interior, and between IID and MWD and Coachella. But we are prepared to work 

cooperatively and in good faith with our QSA partners and the Federal Government 

to make the QSA a reality. With your assistance, and with the assistance of your 

Subcommittee and other members of Congress, I am confident we can reach that 

goal. 

Mr. CALVERT. It’s only 100 degrees out here, Lloyd. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, it’s about this many more than that over there. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Mr. Steven Robbins, General Manager and 

Chief Engineer of the Coachella Valley Water District. 

207

STATEMENT OF STEVEN B. ROBBINS, GENERAL MANAGERCHIEF ENGINEER, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

Mr. ROBBINS. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Members of Congress. 

Mr. CALVERT. And congratulations to you on your promotion. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Thank you. 

The Coachella Valley Water District believes that the QSA is the 

single most important component of the California 4.4 plan in 

California’s effort to reduce its Colorado River water dependency. 

Coachella Valley Water District is totally committed to the QSA 

and will continue to work toward its implementation. 

This year, as we know, for the first time California was held to 

4.4 million acre-feet. Under the current priority system, the CVWD 

has the lowest priority of the agricultural water districts. This year 

when water orders were approved, Coachella had an approved 

water order. Due to all the legal wrangling that went on in April, 

our water order was reduced. We lost a third of our water, approximately 110,000 acre-feet of our water. 

Because that happened a third of the way through the year, to 

spread that loss out over the remainder of the year meant we only 

had half of our normal water for the rest of the year. That is a severe impact on the Coachella Valley Water District. Many of our 

farmers turned to groundwater, and the groundwater basin is already severely overdrafted. And even when turning to groundwater, it’s not enough pumping capacity in our aquifer to make up 

for that water that we had lost. 

As a result of that, we had to turn to one of the other water districts, to Palo Verde Irrigation District, to—we implemented a fouling program with them to protect our half-billion dollar ag economy. We spent 12 million dollars to get through the rest of this 

year and doubled our water rates to deal with what is going on 

right now. 

With the QSA, none of this would have happened. We would 

have water, and things would be good. Without a QSA, irregardless 

what happens with the 417 process, we face uncertainties every 

year and challenges of, perhaps, extreme amounts of money to 

cover our water needs. 

Throughout this process, the primary obstacle to getting the QSA 

done has been the Salton Sea. The environmental issues surrounding that have just killed the whole process. As most of you 

know, the Salton Sea is 25 percent saltier than the ocean, and it’s 

getting saltier every year. Without intervention, with or without 

transfers, the Salton Sea will not survive as we know it. 

Recently some have tried to hold the transfers and QSA hostage 

to Salton Sea restorations. We don’t believe that that’s the way to 

do it. If you go back and look at the Salton Sea Reclamation Act, 

the Salton Sea Reclamation Act specifically recognized that restoration should accommodate transfers. And we believe that that’s 

what should happen and that the transfers should be able to move 

forward. 

Excuse me. It’s imperative that state officials and Federal officials act quickly to resolve the issues of the Salton Sea. From an 

environmental standpoint, the Salton Sea right now is on the edge. 

It will die quickly with or without the transfers without intervenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
208

tion. Delaying the QSA does not help the Salton Sea. Under the 

current QSA, we have committed to no impact on the Salton Sea 

for the next 15 years. Believe me, if something doesn’t happen with 

the Salton Sea in the next 15 years, again, there will be no Salton 

Sea as we know it today. 

Coachella Valley Water District is dedicated to a Salton Sea solution, but this can’t be tied to the transfers. Both issues must be resolved, and they must be resolved quickly. In conclusion, Coachella 

Valley Water District is dedicated to the QSA, dedicated to the 

Salton Sea restoration. But if we don’t get a Salton Sea solution, 

it’s the growers and the people of Coachella Valley who are going 

to suffer most out of this whole deal because we are caught in the 

middle. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robbins follows:]

Statement of Steven B. Robbins, General Manager-Chief Engineer,

Coachella Valley Water District 

The Quantification Settlement Agreement is the single most important component 

of California’s effort to reduce its Colorado River water dependency. The Coachella 

Valley Water District remains totally committed to the Quantification Settlement 

Agreement as it has been throughout the multi-year process. We will continue to 

work toward its implementation. 

Under the current priority system, the Coachella Valley Water District has the 

lowest priority for agricultural water from the Colorado River. Unfortunately, this 

year we lost nearly a third (108,000 acre feet) of our Colorado River supply when 

a Federal judge ruled that the Bureau of Reclamation had committed a procedural 

error in its process for allocating water to Imperial Irrigation District. Because, this 

loss came late in the year its affect was more like a 50 percent cut for the remainder 

of the year. In an effort to keep their permanent crops alive, water users have had 

to activate wells to mine the already overdrafted groundwater basin. Additional 

overdraft increases concerns of surface subsidence, water quality impacts and permanent loss of storage capacity. Even this additional groundwater pumping could 

not fill our water needs. 

To obtain the additional water that was needed to protect the Valley’s $529 million agricultural economy, we were forced to spend an additional $12 million to initiate a fallowing project in the Palo Verde Valley. This gave us access to additional 

water to help us get through the summer months but also resulted in our water 

rates doubling. 

If the QSA had been in place we would have had a fixed entitlement and not been 

blindsided by a mid-year cutback. Without the QSA we face these same uncertainties and potential costs every year. These uncertainties, if not resolved, will have 

long term impacts on the valley’s economy. 

The primary obstacle to implementing the QSA has been the Salton Sea. The sea 

was created between 1905 and 1907 when the entire flow of the Colorado River was 

accidentally diverted into the Salton Sink. It has been maintained since with irrigation drainage water from Imperial Valley, Mexicali Valley in Mexico and the 

Coachella Valley. 

Because the Salton Sea is located in the second lowest spot in the United States, 

just slightly higher than Death Valley, it has no natural outlet. The water arriving 

there evaporates and concentrates. While it still supports a fish population, it is significantly saltier than ocean water and getting saltier each year. 

Without intervention by man, the Salton Sea will soon become too salty to support 

a fishery which will severely impact the bird populations at the Sea. With or without water transfers, immediate action is needed at the Salton Sea if the Sea as we 

know it is to survive. 

The QSA parties fully expected the Federal Government, in accordance with the 

Salton Sea Reclamation Act, to move forward on a separate track with plans to fund 

a Salton Sea solution before it became an issue with the QSA. The Act specifically 

recognized that restoration should accommodate transfers as contemplated under 

the QSA. Unfortunately this has not happened and some are now trying to hold the 

QSA hostage to Salton Sea restoration. The current QSA will have no measurable 

impact on the Sea for 15 years. It is imperative that State and Federal officials 

work together and quickly to solve the problems of the Salton Sea before it is too 

209

late. Delaying the QSA does not help the Salton Sea. Without immediate intervention by the Federal Government the Salton Sea will die. 

The foremost concern amongst the QSA agencies is the threat that they may face 

extremely large environmental costs as a result of being saddled with the task 

maintaining the Salton Sea. 

Coachella Valley Water District, as part of the Salton Sea Authority, is dedicated 

to restoring the Salton Sea but this has to be a separate issue from the QSA. The 

Federal Government must take immediate steps to separate the two issues, get the 

Salton Sea restoration on track and get the QSA approved. 

To reiterate, Coachella Valley Water District has consistently supported the QSA 

and will continue to do so. Our water users have the most to lose if the process fails. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentleman. 

Next, Mr. Ada ́n Ortega, Vice President of the External Affairs 

operation for the Metropolitan Water District. 

Mr. Ortega. All right, Chairman Calvert. I’d like to respectfully 

request that my testimony be entered into the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. No objections? Your testimony will be entered into 

the record. All testimony will be entered into the record. 

STATEMENT OF ADA ́ N ORTEGA, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ORTEGA. Thank you, sir. 

I bring greetings from MWD’s Chairman, Phillip Pace, who also 

sends his regrets for not being able to be here. 

Metropolitan’s position on the QSA is we’re not of the premise 

that our board of directors has a fiduciary responsibility to carefully examine the benefits and risks in various QSA proposals to 

Southern California ratepayers. 

Recently, at the request of the Administration of Governor Davis, 

Metropolitan has provided an alternative timetable and financial 

strategy to resolve outstanding QSA issues within the framework 

we and other parties signed under the Governor’s leadership on 

March 12th, 2003. Essentially, Metropolitan’s board supports 

studying a Salton Sea restoration/water supply plan, as advanced 

by State Senator Mike Machado. This includes: 

One, a 3-year period to undertake a study to determine if the 

Salton Sea can be reconfigured to a smaller area, desalt agricultural runoff for use on nearby farms, and free up Colorado River 

supplies for use in urban areas. This would include a substitute 

supply for Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority transfer for this 3-year period. 

Two, provisions to return to the original IID/San Diego County 

Water Authority transfer if the Salton Sea restoration plan proves 

infeasible. 

And, three, a QSA funding alternative in the event that the IID/

San Diego County Water Authority transfer moves forward, that is 

implemented upon the principles that, (a) beneficiaries should pay 

for the benefits to be provided by the QSA, and, (b) public bond 

funds should be used for the purposes that reflect the intent of the 

voters. 

We believe that this is a viable alternative because permitting 

the use of bond funds on both the water reliability projects as intended by the voters will demonstrate California’s commitment to 

live within its 4.4 million acre-feet apportionment on the Colorado 

210

River and provide consistency with the CalFed record of decision 

allowing Southern California to stabilize its dependence on the 

Bay-Delta, all while allowing uncertainties created by the Salton 

Sea to be thoroughly vented. By contrast, the IID/San Diego 

County Water transfer starts with 10,000 acre-feet per year and 

grows by only 10,000 acre-feet per year producing 100,000 acre-feet 

by 2017; and the drought on the Colorado River has had significant 

impacts on projections of available surplus which are substantially 

diminished for the term ending on 2015. 

Metropolitan also holds that a subsidized market transfer policy 

precedent under the current standing QSA proposal cannot be sustained by the State of California in future years and will damage 

long-term transfers and exchanges critical to the CalFed process 

and the Colorado River. During the past 4 years, Metropolitan has 

undertaken transfers and exchanges with many agencies throughout the state and has implemented them while bearing the full 

cost. 

Under the current and alternative proposals presently on the 

table, Metropolitan pays the full cost for QSA components and 

more. This includes the full cost of the existing MWD/IID transfer, 

the full cost of the Palo Verde/MWD transfer, and we are contributing to the costs for the Coachella/IID transfer for the promise of 

an option to purchase water Coachella chooses to forego. 

The critical question is whether San Diego and IID will pay for 

the benefits that they each will secure through the QSA deal. 

Metropolitan’s position is that sacrificing the trust of the public by 

redirecting voter-approved bonds will jeopardize future financing 

for programs that are critical for the state including the CalFed 

program. The local projects afforded by Proposition 50 and Proposition 13 provide long-term water reliability while creating jobs and 

community awareness. 

Finally, the challenge before us is to recognize a new reality in 

Southern California’s water supply picture. 53 percent of the region’s supply reliability hangs on local projects. Completion of the 

QSA is presently on the table in bringing 2 to 3 percent water 

supply benefit. Transfers are a major component of long-term storage strategies. In a dry year, up to 26 percent of Southern 

California’s supplies will come from stored waters south of the 

Delta. This is the reality which the Metropolitan Board is addressing in harnessing resources to meet water needs of its service area. 

Originally, Mr. Chairman, we envisioned that our chief negotiator would be preoccupied with matters in Sacramento. So now, 

with your permission, I’d like to introduce Dennis Underwood, 

MWD Vice President for Colorado River matters, who will join me 

in answering questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortega follows:]

Statement of Ada ́n Ortega, Jr., Vice President, External Affairs, 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

My name is Ada ́n Ortega and I serve as Vice President for External Affairs at 

the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Thank you Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity of providing you 

with introductory testimony regarding Metropolitan’s position on the Quantification 

Settlement Agreement (QSA). 

211

Metropolitan’s current position on the QSA is borne out of the premise that our 

Board of Directors has a fiduciary responsibility to carefully examine the benefits 

and risks in various QSA proposals to Southern California ratepayers. 

Recently, at the request of the Administration of Governor Davis, Metropolitan 

has provided an alternative timetable and financial strategy to resolve outstanding 

QSA issues within the framework we and the other parties signed under the Governor’s leadership on March 12, 2003. Essentially, Metropolitan’s Board supports 

studying a Salton Sea restoration/water supply plan, as advanced by State Senator 

Mike Machado, which includes: 

1. A three-year period to undertake a study to determine if the Salton Sea can 

be reconfigured to restore a smaller sea, desalt agricultural runoff for use on nearby 

farms, and free up Colorado River supplies for use in urban areas. This would include a substitute supply for Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water 

Authority (IID/SDCWA) transfer for the three-year period. 

2. Provisions to return to the original IID/SDCWA transfer if the Salton Sea restoration plan proves infeasible. 

3. A QSA funding alternative, in the event the IID/SDCWA transfer moves forward, that is implemented upon the principles that (a) beneficiaries should pay for 

the benefits to be provided by the QSA and the IID/SDCWA transfer, and (b) public 

bond funds should be used for the purposes that reflect the intent of the voters. 

We believe that this is a viable alternative because permitting the use of bond 

funds on local water reliability projects as intended by the voters will demonstrate 

California’s commitment to live within its 4.4 million acre-feet (af) apportionment 

on the Colorado River; and provide consistency with the CALFED Record of Decision 

allowing Southern California to stabilize its dependence on the Bay-Delta—all while 

allowing the uncertainties created by the Salton Sea to be thoroughly vetted. By 

contrast the IID/SDCWA transfer starts with 10,000 af per year and grows by only 

10,000 af per year, producing 100,000 af per year by 2017; and the drought on the 

Colorado River has had significant impacts on projections of available surplus which 

are substantially diminished for the term ending in 2015. 

Metropolitan also holds that a subsidized market transfer policy precedent under 

the current standing QSA proposal cannot be sustained by the State of California 

in future years and will damage long-term transfers and exchanges critical to the 

CALFED process and the Colorado River. During the past four years Metropolitan 

has undertaken transfers and exchanges with many agencies throughout the state 

and has implemented them while bearing the full cost. 

Under the current and alternative proposals presently on the table, Metropolitan 

pays the full cost for QSA components and more. This includes the full cost of the 

existing MWD/IID transfer; the full cost of the Palo Verde/MWD transfer; and we 

are contributing to the costs of the Coachella/IID transfer for the promise of an option to purchase water Coachella chooses to forego. 

The critical question is whether San Diego and IID will pay for the benefits that 

they each will secure through a QSA deal. Metropolitan’s position is that sacrificing 

the trust of the public by re-directing voter-approved bonds will jeopardize future 

financing for programs that are critical for the state including the CALFED program. The local projects afforded by Proposition 50 and Proposition 13 provide longterm water reliability while creating jobs and community awareness. 

Finally, the challenge before us is to recognize a new reality in Southern 

California’s water supply picture. Fifty-three percent of the region’s supply reliability hangs on local projects. Completion of the QSA as presently on the table may 

bring a 2% to 3% water supply benefit. Transfers are a major component of longterm storage strategies. In a dry year, up to 26% of Southern California’s supplies 

will come from stored water south of the Delta. 

This is the reality which the Metropolitan Board is addressing in harnessing resources to meet the water needs of its service area. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Next, Maureen Stapleton with the San Diego County Water 

Authority. 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN A. STAPLETON, GENERAL 

MANAGER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 

Ms. STAPLETON. Good morning, Chairman Calvert, members of 

the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. 

212

I also have submitted testimony, but I really want to focus on some 

critical issues, I think. 

We all talk about the importance of the QSA, but I want to get 

to some specifics about what the QSA really means. 

First, the QSA is not merely a transfer between San Diego and 

IID. It is not just Interim Surplus Guidelines and surplus supplies 

for Metropolitan. The QSA is actually a comprehensive set of documents that represents eight major water programs that will yield 

up to 36 million acre-feet of agricultural to urban transfers through 

the term of the QSA, 36 million acre-feet. We’re not talking just 

about some water. We’re talking about millions of acre-feet that 

could be opened up and available to California. 

I think, also, you heard from Resource Secretary Mary Nichols, 

that in addition to just the water transfer programs, we recently—

our discussions have focused on how to incorporate the potential 

restoration of the Salton Sea into the final QSA documents. And 

we are working very hard to try to make that work and, as you 

heard earlier, really incorporate this opportunity. 

Second, I want to talk a little bit about the result of not having 

the QSA this year. You heard from the basin states representatives 

that we were to have finished this business by December of last 

year, and we were unable to do so. Chairman Calvert, you said in 

your opening statements that California’s loss as a result of not 

completing the QSA was about 20 percent of our Colorado River 

supplies. In actuality, for urban California, it was more than 50 

percent of our Colorado River supplies. I think that really talks to 

a great deal about the significance of the implications of not having 

the QSA and, as you heard, our need, then, to go to Northern and 

Central California to replace those supplies. 

I have a chart here I’d just like to show you briefly, which is—

basically you can see in the chart, the blue is the Colorado River 

supplies, and the pie chart on the left shows historically what we 

do. Two-thirds of our supplies of imported water come from the 

Colorado River, about a third from the state water project. This 

year we have flipped that. Over two-thirds of our water has had 

to come from Northern California this year through the ecologically 

sensitive Bay-Delta. Through the challenges that we’re facing 

through CalFed, this year alone we’ve had to take over 1.4 million 

acre-feet out of Northern California to make up the loss we felt in 

urban Southern California of the lack of the QSA. Thank you. 

Third, I want to talk about what the future would look like without the QSA. Mother nature is a very fickle partner to us. And, as 

you know, unlike the Colorado River that has a lot of storage, 

about 60 million acre-feet, and has gotten us through these very 

dry years on the Colorado River, we are not so fortunate on the 

state water project. Mother nature goes up and down each and 

every year on the state water supplies. And as you can see from 

this chart, on the left-hand side was the drought of the late ’80’s 

and the early ’90’s. At that point in 1991, we had a 20 percent allocation of our state water project supplies. You can also see just in 

the past few years alone on the state water project in 2000, we 

went to 100 percent, followed by the very next year in allocation 

of 39 percent of state water project supplies. This is not something 

213

that you want urban Southern California to rely upon for our economy and our 17 million people. Thank you. 

I want to show you what a dry year would look like if we are 

not able to open up the Colorado River again and open up the agto-urban transfers. You can see in a dry year at 20 percent, we are 

missing about one-and-a-half million acre-feet of water with the 

state water project only delivering 400,000 acre-feet and the 

Colorado River 600,000. Even if you add the local storage and the 

various storage programs that we have available, you’ll see the 

pink section is the additional water that we can bring in a one-, 

possibly 2-year dry circumstance. But you have to have water in 

normal years in order to store it for dry years. If you’re living from 

hand to mouth each and every year in water supplies, you won’t 

get the water you need to store it for future years. Thank you. 

And, finally, I want to talk about where we’re at today. I think 

we’re at a fork in the road. There’s lots of issues going on. We can 

argue about state and Federal investments and water projects. As 

Resources Secretary Mary Nichols said, we’ve been very fortunate 

in California that our state has in fact passed three water bonds 

upon which we’ve invested in a variety of water supplies. Some of 

the debate has been around giving up local projects to do the QSA. 

That’s not true. We need them both. We need the QSA to provide 

the foundation. We need new local projects to give us the water we 

need for the growth that we can anticipate in California in the next 

few years. 

We have a very clear decision to make. As I said, we’re at a fork 

in the road. I think one fork leads us to uncertain water supplies 

and the potential for lengthy and costly litigation. I think the other 

path gives us the QSA, and that will provide us long-term reliability, certainty, and ultimately peace on the river. We in 

California, with the assistance of our representatives in D.C., need 

to make a very careful and thoughtful decision about which path 

we take. 

Thank you, Chairman Calvert and the members, for this opportunity and your continued leadership on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stapleton follows:]

Statement of Maureen A. Stapleton, General Manager,

San Diego County Water Authority 

Urban Southern California receives its imported water supplies from two primary 

sources: the State Water Project, which depends upon the ecologically sensitive BayDelta; and the Colorado River. The Colorado River has been the historic backbone 

of Southern California’s water supply reliability, providing annually two-thirds of 

the water supplies the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California serves to 

17 million Californians—half of the state’s population. The Colorado River is the 

foundation for much of the state’s $1.4 trillion economy. 

Under the Law of the River, the Secretary of the Interior is the Watermaster for 

the Lower Colorado River. Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley has been overseeing 

the progress of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), a comprehensive 

program that would reduce California’s historic over-reliance on the Colorado River. 

California’s basic annual apportionment from the Colorado River is 4.4 million acrefeet. (An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, or enough water to serve the annual needs 

of two families of four.) For decades, California has drawn more than 5 million acrefeet a year. In 2002, California drew more than 5.3 million acre-feet of water from 

the Colorado River. 

The QSA is a package of eight core, long-term Colorado River water supply agreements between four California water agencies: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Imperial Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority and 

214

Coachella Valley Water District. Under the QSA, up to 36 million acre-feet of water 

would voluntarily shift from agricultural use to urban use, thereby reducing 

California’s over-reliance on the Colorado River. 

Under the QSA, the Secretary of the Interior and the other six Colorado River 

basin states (Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming) agreed 

to give California a 14-year ‘‘soft landing’’ to implement the water supply programs 

and gradually reduce its draw on the river to its 4.4 million acre-foot basic annual 

apportionment. However, the agreement required the four California water agencies 

to execute the QSA by Dec. 31, 2002; the agencies missed the deadline and, to date, 

the QSA has not been signed. As a consequence, the Secretary of the Interior cut 

California back to its 4.4 million acre-foot basic annual apportionment this year. Because of the priority system to Colorado River water, the Metropolitan Water District will absorb all of the cutback. Metropolitan has already lost about 300,000 

acre-feet this year and, as every month goes by, Metropolitan loses another 50,000 

acre-feet. By the end of 2003, Metropolitan could lose more than 650,000 acre-feet 

of its Colorado River supplies. 

Fortunately, opportunity to almost immediately restore much of the lost Colorado 

River supplies is close at hand: execution of the QSA. The primary ‘‘sticking point’’ 

is the use of $200 million of state bond funds to ensure that environmental impacts 

associated with the QSA program are mitigated and other environmental protections are put into place. Placed into the context of spending for CalFed environmental restoration, this is a small sum. In the context of water supply investment—

the amount of water obtained per state dollar spent—this is an incredible bargain 

for the state, producing far more water than any other conceivable use of the funds. 

This money would restore more than 500,000 acre-feet per year to Metropolitan, beginning this year. California must soon reverse its recent history of urban water 

supply loss. The QSA offers a way to maintain a very large regional water supply, 

at a low cost, and without impacts to other states that share the Colorado River. 

It is imperative that all interested parties focus their entire attention on completing the QSA, so that California’s water supply reliability can be restored now 

and for the future. It is simply inexcusable to allow our attention to be diverted 

from this absolutely vital task. And yet the Department of the Interior has suspended participation in the QSA, stating that its must instead concentrate on 

Colorado River water rights litigation. Ironically, that litigation, Imperial Irrigation 

District v. United States, is exactly the controversy that the QSA will prevent. 

The litigation was brought by IID after Interior, on December 27, 2002, notified 

IID that its water order for 2003 would be cut by more than 300,000 acre-feet. In 

making its decision, Interior for the first time used its yearly process of assessing 

water orders, under 43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 417, to determine that a 

river contractor would not reasonably use its requested order. IID, faced with the 

choice of either accepting the loss of water based on alleged waste or contesting Interior’s decision, sued in Federal court on January 10, 2003. 

On March 18, 2003, the Court granted IID’s motion for a preliminary injunction 

to restore its water order because of an abuse of the Part 417 process by Interior. 

The Court then remanded the proceeding to Interior to conduct a renewed Part 417 

process. That process is under way and will probably extend into October. After October, if the litigation continues, the Court must tackle the central issues of the 

case, and it is entirely likely that it will take years to resolve. In the end, the outcome, while it may benefit some water users and their customers, will be disastrous 

for other users, and may have implications to the six Colorado River basin states. 

The QSA will provide benefits to all the involved water agencies, settle legal disputes that have festered for decades, and make court battles such as IID v. U.S. 

totally unnecessary. The Arizona v. California lawsuit, which began in 1952, is an 

example of the kind of litigation process that may be expected if the QSA fails. In 

that litigation, California challenged Arizona’s entitlement to the river. The case 

went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where California lost its challenge in 1964. The 

Court’s opinion did not address all of the issues, and the resumption of conflicts 

caused the Court to issues supplemental decrees in 1979 and in 1984. The case is 

still open. 

We need to dedicate our time and resources on resolving the QSA. Right now we 

are facing a fork in the road. One road leads to an uncertain water supply and potential lengthy, costly litigation. The other road will give us the QSA. Governor 

Davis and his team worked hard to produce a revised QSA statement that was 

signed by the negotiators of all four California agencies. These agency negotiators 

pledged to recommend the QSA to their respective Boards of Directors. It is imperative in order for us to achieve success that the Secretary of Interior and her staff 

dedicate the necessary resources and focus required to reach the successful concluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
215

sion of the QSA. It is this path that will provide us long-term water reliability, certainty, and ultimately, peace on the river. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

We’re going to start our questions now. And we’re going to continue the 5-minute rule on questions, but I’m sure there will be 

time for more than one round of questions. And I’ll start with our 

own Department of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Mr. Rinne, how has Interior supported the negotiations with the 

state and other water agencies regarding the USA? In other words, 

have you guys gotten in the middle of this? Have you provided 

guidance, helped to close this deal? How would you portray your 

position is? 

Mr. RINNE. I would probably do it in two ways. 

Prior to the end of last year, 2002, we actively, right up to the 

end, worked along with all the parties closely to try to bring this 

to conclusion. 

Mr. CALVERT. What are we—obviously, we all know the results 

at the end of 2002. They weren’t good. 

What have you done since then? 

Mr. RINNE. Since that time, there have been at least—as we 

went along, we look to California, within California parties, to 

come to agreement on a QSA, and have kind of stood ready from 

that point to meet with them after that. 

Mr. CALVERT. Oh. What about proactive steps? Is there anything 

you’ve done—rather than step back and obviously looked at the 

warring parties here, is there anything the Bureau’s done to step 

in here and act as a facilitator? 

Mr. RINNE. We have not tried to facilitate the—what’s been primarily—again, we look at that as primarily a California matter. 

This, again, goes back, Mr. Chairman, to the idea that we really 

have been relying on California parties to kind of come together. 

At this point in time, I guess the best way to say it is, this has 

really come to a QSA that they’ve agreed to. 

Mr. CALVERT. My suggestion is that you ought to involve yourself 

in this negotiation as soon as possible. 

Next question, without a QSA, what is the certainty that the Interim Surplus flow can be implemented? 

Mr. RINNE. Without a QSA to sustain the amount, it would not—

it would remain suspended. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is that an acceptable situation to the Bureau? 

Mr. RINNE. We, along with the others, the other states, and in 

California itself, Mr. Chairman, have worked tirelessly to get the 

Interim Surplus Guidelines there to do that, provide a very soft 

landing. So we would like to see that. 

Mr. CALVERT. In the meantime, obviously the Department has 

been active proactively in another aspect regarding Part 417. And 

I understand an announcement will be made shortly. 

And how will the process work to finalize those actions if and 

when—maybe you can give us an idea, to all of us up here, what 

is 417, just for the record, and when do you plan on implementing 

that or announcing the results of that? 

Mr. RINNE. The first thing—I will respond to that, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that, just to open, I understand, and I 

216

really appreciate the interest and importance of this particular 

issue, 417. But I do want to say in my remarks here, I want to 

steer clear of any of the substance of the actual 417 analysis going 

on. 

What the 417 is, to answer your first question, is it’s a court-ordered process of Reclamation’s going through to review the water 

order, the 2003 water order, or water needs for Imperial Irrigation 

District. 

As far as when—the second part is when the determination will 

be made. That’s really a matter for the lower Colorado region director. As you’re probably aware, the determination—first initial determination is the regional directors. And a lot of the timing of that 

is going to depend on how long it takes to get through the volume 

of material. I think that people who are close to this, a tremendous 

amount of information was submitted during the comment period, 

20, 30 boxes of things. And I know the staff are working on it, and 

other regional directors are working toward this. So as soon as that 

can be completed and a determination then thereafter made, then 

the regional director actually will issue an initial determination. So 

it’s really in his court to do that. 

Mr. CALVERT. Now, obviously this has gotten the attention of not 

just people in California, obviously other folks too. Because the concept of beneficial use is certainly something that I’m sure that others are looking at. Because if, in fact, the Secretary as the 

watermaster for the lower basin can act to redistribute water within a state, in effect, will the Secretary act to do that outside of just 

this issue, Imperial Irrigation District? Wouldn’t, in fact—theoretically, in fact, this occurs, would the Secretary by definition look at 

other areas for this very same concept? 

Mr. RINNE. Mr. Chairman, the short answer is no. 

The legal framework on Part 417, as I think you’re aware, is 

unique to the lower basin of the Colorado River and unique to the 

three lower basin states. 

Mr. CALVERT. But it does affect—I would ask the State of Arizona, how does the State of Arizona feel about that? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Mr. Chairman, we don’t like it. We feel like the 

Secretary exceeds their authority in this, that this is a state’s 

rights issue, that the water is apportioned among the states and 

belongs to the people of the state, and it’s up to those people to determine what is beneficial to them in each individual circumstance. 

Mr. CALVERT. And that’s how you interpret the law? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Mr. Chairman, I don’t try to interpret the law. 

Sometimes I just have a gut feeling on what’s right and what’s necessary with regard to Secretarial powers within the lower Colorado 

River. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentleman. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it’s an interesting 

question that you’re posing there, and I’d like to follow up on that. 

Do the agencies in Southern California and particularly the 

lower Colorado River actually own the water, or is it more correct 

to say they have rights to use the water? Does the Secretary impose any conditions over the use of the water? 

217

Mr. RINNE. The water—the rights to use are to the lower basin 

states, California, Arizona, Nevada. They have a right to the use 

of that water. All the Secretary does as watermaster is actually act 

to manage to deliver that water. That’s the responsibility. But in 

that delivery, the Secretary must make sure that the water that’s 

delivered is what’s necessary for reasonable and beneficial use. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that makes sense, except that sometimes 

we don’t get that determination in areas where we need it. 

You mentioned about the 417 process. What’s the timeframe for 

that evaluation? 

Mr. RINNE. Again, Congresswoman, the way I would answer is, 

keeping in mind the first step in the 417 process is to the regional 

director of the lower Colorado region to make a determination, initial determination. What’s going on right now is the regional director and his staff are going through all the material that was submitted in during the comment period from interested parties, and 

there were a variety of them. And the regional director follows, actually, a very stringent procedure that’s set out in the court process. There’s some 16 factors to look at, technical factors, technical 

analysis. So he will go through that. 

I would just be speculating as to when his determination comes, 

but the first step is the regional director is to do that. I know 

they’re working real hard, and the volume was tremendous. Literally, when we closed the comment period, there was lots of information there. So I know he’s working hard on it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. If I would have known that, I probably would 

have submitted something myself. This is the first I’ve really heard 

about a 417 process, which I think you need to be sure that the 

Administration, that Secretary Raley, Assistant Secretary Raley, 

informs the Committee so that we are aware of what the processes 

are being utilized. 

Also, one of the things that bothers me—and I’ve sat for a number of years both at the state level, and I’ve gone through the water 

fights with the former Assemblyman, then Senator Cortesi, as well 

as Assemblyman and now Senator Costa, and essentially, a lot was 

done. We’ve had—and I keep saying to people that most the people 

who pay for that water are Southern Californians. 

My concern is and continues to be, is that—and I totally agree. 

We need to protect the Bay-Delta. We need to protect the ecosystem. We need to protect the fisheries. We also need to protect 

other areas, especially in urban areas. And somehow we’ve been 

given some of the tools. And with the Bureau’s recently new water 

2025, you do not include in there—and I’m not saying it’s your 

fault or that you have the answers, but that Secretary—Secretary 

Raley, in Claremont College, Claremont McKenna College, in your 

former area, I think it was, stated that the program is not intended 

for California, that California needs to solve its own problems it 

created. 

Unfortunately, that’s not going to help the rest of the western 

states, and I’m concerned whether that is really going to be the 

thrust of the Department’s 2025 thrust. Because if you do, you’re 

hurting the whole economy of the western United States. And the 

fact that water recycling is not part of any goal of your ReclamaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
218

tion is not necessarily where we need to go to be able to meet the 

4.4 and 2025—or 2016, rather. 

And so I’m requesting—I’m begging, if you will, reconsideration 

of those programs that are helping us meet the 4.4. And I’d like 

your comments on that, sir. I don’t want to put you on the spot, 

but you’re on the spot. 

Mr. RINNE. My comment would be on the water 2025 as a general matter. I think that my understanding of what we’re trying to 

do here obviously is not to come in west-wide and impose a Federal 

solution on all the water requirements, but certainly we’d like to 

come west-wide and come alongside the state and the local users 

as well as Congress to see if there are things we might do to help 

where we see crisis and conflict coming. 

And I know I’m speaking to the choir here, in effect, but the population growth in the west and the southwest is tremendous. The 

water supply is stretched; that’s why we’re sitting here today. I 

think the vision is more along the lines it’s not that the Federal 

Government’s hoping to come up with a—the Secretary’s coming up 

with a big bag of money, but to help out where we can in a solution. And so I see it as a west-wide kind of approach. 

On water recycling, what I would say is it’s not so much an opposition to it; it’s more of a focus, trying to put a focus more toward 

things like desal, try it again just like we did in water recycling, 

try to bring out things that will help in reaching water needs. So 

part of the thrust would be, to the extent we could, in one of the 

parts that I think you’re probably aware, in the water 2025, is the 

desal type of emphasis, to try to get that cost of desal down to the 

point that it does become one of those tools that I think—personally think that would probably help a lot in the west. 

So it’s a tough situation, and I think we continue to work where 

we can on that. And I will carry back your other questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence one more second, but 

isn’t there quite a difference between desal and recycling water 

costs? And we have proven that we can recycle cheaper than being 

able to get more water. 

I could also go in and start talking about cleaning up and desal 

too. The water’s there; we just can’t get to it. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlelady. 

Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rinne, you described this 417 procedure as court-ordered, did 

you not? 

Mr. RINNE. That’s correct. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s go back to the genesis of this 417. The Secretary made a number of statements to the effect that they would 

very closely scrutinize the water use of parties that didn’t cooperate 

with the QSA over the last several years. After the first of the year, 

we still didn’t have a QSA. Imperial Irrigation District made its request, its annual water request, and the Federal Government 

turned it down, basically held onto it, said, ‘‘We’re not going to 

agree to this request.’’ That was the first 417, even though it 

219

wasn’t done, according to the Federal judge, in an appropriate 

manner. But that was—the initial 417, was it not? 

Mr. RINNE. Congressman, the process—and I think you’re fairly 

close on that, but may be just a little different. Every year— 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah, every year you’ve asked—made your water 

request. 

Mr. RINNE. Every year all the water contractors in the lower 

basin come into the water orders, and Part 417 has been in effect 

since ’64. It is very true that the 417 process is not the same rigor 

and technical analysis that we’re going through at this time, has 

not been done before. But the 417 process is a process that determines the request from water contractors and then a response by 

the regional director and determination, is that water order appropriate for that year. 

The particular time—so I come back to the point of your 

question—is that at the end of the last year, we had already received the Imperial Irrigation District’s water order. It’s true that 

we did not accept the amount that they requested and approved a 

lesser amount. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah. And did that have any anything to do with 

the fact a QSA hadn’t been agreed to yet? Of course it did, didn’t 

it? Well, I mean, let’s be candid. 

Mr. RINNE. We—what I would tell you again, and tell it to you 

in all candidness, is that the approval of water orders and water 

use, we’ve taken it very seriously. I personally was doing it for 5 

years. 

We look every year at— 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, listen, I understand that. Are you telling me 

there was absolutely no connection between the fact that we had 

just failed to meet the December 31st deadline that the Secretary 

set for us to make the QSA and the fact that very shortly after 

that, having failed to do that, you refused the Imperial Irrigation 

District’s water order? 

You’re saying there’s no connection. 

Mr. RINNE. No. 

Mr. HUNTER. You’re under an obligation to tell the truth as you 

know it. Are you telling me there’s no connection whatsoever? 

Mr. RINNE. Connection in my mind is it’s a close looking, in a 

very watertight year, Congressman, at the use and the amounts of 

water being used. So that in the best judgment of the—in the best 

judgment through the Department, first through our regional director and then, as you know, that particular water order would have 

been approved by the Assistant Secretary, that that was the proper 

amount of water to provide. 

Mr. HUNTER. In that case, this was, as you just said, a closer 

scrutiny than you normally show—than you normally undertake 

for somebody’s water request, was it not? 

Mr. RINNE. In that particular process, we also look, I think—I 

would remind you we also looked closely at Coachella, looked at 

Metropolitan. We issued water orders for all of California understanding that— 

Mr. HUNTER. What factor led you to use what you called a deeper 

(inaudible) than you used in other years? What fact did you see 

that prompted you to do that with respect to IID? 

220

Mr. RINNE. Water—just think of the water—well, just overall, 

just think of the water supply, Congressman, and where we were 

sitting with the amount of water we had, 4 years of drought, those 

type of things. And as they go on, to clarify, too, is the determination would have not been—would not—I sat down and figured out 

the factor. And I don’t know that you were asking me what I would 

consider. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s get to the statement you just made that this 

was a court-ordered requirement. And you’re nodding your head 

again, and that’s apparently your understanding. 

I’ve got with me your pleadings, that is, the Interior’s pleadings, 

to the judge when the judge threw it out the first time. You then—

and I’m reading, and I quote from your pleadings, ‘‘Interior has developed a proposed remedy’’—this is after it had been thrown out 

the first time—‘‘which fully meets the substantive and procedural 

concerns identified by the court and its ruling. Interior proposes to 

undertake a new revised use for the Imperial Irrigation District’s 

2003 water allocation through the 417 process.’’. 

So you asked to be ordered to relook IID’s water use, didn’t you? 

Mr. RINNE. We were, as you know— 

Mr. HUNTER. These are your pleadings, and I’d like you to answer the question. Did you not ask and propose that you record another 417? 

Mr. RINNE. The court—my understanding, the court found—in 

the first process, the court found that, in fact, we had not followed 

a meticulous procedure, 417, which are—what I believe you’re reading from is a proposal as to how we would accomplish the 417. And 

then the court came back with— 

Mr. HUNTER. But the court didn’t order that you do a new 417 

until you asked them to order that you do a new 417; correct? 

Mr. RINNE. The way I would answer that is that you do have the 

pleading, and that—so, as you say, that’s— 

Mr. HUNTER. And I’ll make a copy of this available. 

For you to see how the court—how you were ordered to do this. 

Mr. Ortega, you’ve heard from the other water districts to the effect that a QSA is a linchpin to California’s water future. It appears all the other parties are ready to go with this. Now, Matt has 

held this thing up on the basis that you think this is a—breaks 

your fiduciary duty to the people of this state with respect to the 

use of their money on water projects. 

And so you’ve made this proposal, and I’ve read the proposal 

under which San Diego and Imperial County would pay and be responsible for most of this Reclamation of the Salton Sea. It’s six 

bucks an acre-foot. 70 percent of that would fall on the people of 

Imperial Valley. You say you don’t want to see the people of the 

State of California make this payment. You think it’s better that 

the Valley make this payment. 

Isn’t the government of the State of California elected by the people? Isn’t that true? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, that’s true. 

Mr. HUNTER. And I’m assuming that the people of the State of 

California through their regular processes have determined to come 

up with this several hundred millions of dollars to meet these environmental obligations. 

221

Who is the Metropolitan Water District to try to set aside, basically, that determination which is representative of the will of the 

people? If you presume that they elect their representatives and 

elect their Governor and that that is their intent, why are you 

holding things up? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, with all due respect, we recognize 

that there are moneys in Proposition 50 that can address Salton 

Sea mitigation. There’s a general misunderstanding of where the 

200 million dollars—or at least 150 million dollars of that amount 

would go to. It doesn’t go to Salton Sea restoration; it goes to what 

they call in valley impacts, mitigation impacts within the Imperial 

Valley. That is not a Salton Sea mitigation. And, therefore— 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, then, let’s revise the question. So you’re saying that part of the money goes to mitigation for the Sea, some 50 

million. The balance of the money goes to this ag community which 

is going to lose because the ag community is not going to be doing 

as much ag operation as has been done in the past, which is the 

lifeblood of that community. So it goes to make up for some of that. 

Now, if the people of the State of California have decided that 

the water deal is important enough to make these payments to try 

to keep the Valley whole, and they are elected by the people of the 

State of California, and Metropolitan Water District is not elected 

by the people of the State of California, by a very small part of the 

people of the State of California, who are you, the Metropolitan 

Water District, to tell the people of the State of California that they 

can’t spend these moneys as they see fit to make what every district except you have described as the absolute linchpin to 

California’s water future? 

Why are you holding this up? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, we believe that the subsidies that 

this transfer entails may hold up agricultural-to-urban transfers 

throughout the state. The fact of the matter is— 

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s hold you up right here, Mr. Ortega. Then that 

would accrue—in your estimate, you think that’s going to be bad 

for the water users of the people of the State of California at one 

time. You think they’re making a bad judgment here. Nonetheless, 

why can’t it be their judgment? They’re the people who use the 

water, both agricultural and urban. They are represented by their 

state representatives, the assemblymen and senators and their 

Governor. They, as a government of the State of California, have 

made this decision that it’s worth it to go to this community that 

depends on water as a lifeblood of its economy and make these arrangements to free up water to help everyone in the state. We’ve 

all agreed that the water is a key issue for everyone in the state. 

Why are you usurping this decision by the state representatives 

and the government? If the government of California says they’re 

willing to do it, who are you to stop this thing? You want to take 

over criminal justice next? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, with all due respect, we don’t believe 

that we’re usurping the process. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, you’re stopping the deal. 

Mr. ORTEGA. We are participating in a process. The legislature 

has not included their deliberation in allocating these funds toward 

this purpose. And if the legislature were to conclude that that’s a 

222

wise use of the state’s funds that have been approved by the voters, 

Metropolitan would respect that. 

But as participants in this process, we believe it’s our obligation 

to our ratepayers to interpret that these bonds were allocated by 

the voters. They spoke for themselves for a certain purpose, which 

is local projects, and that does not include covering the cost of a 

water transfer. And that’s what our board has advocated. But it 

would respect any decision that the legislature would come to. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, if it doesn’t—and, Mr. Chairman, I’ll be finished just a second. 

If it doesn’t cover—if—you’re saying money is being misused by 

the state, then a lawsuit would fall that would invalidate that law, 

would it not, if this is an invalid or illegal use of moneys by the 

State of California. But it really isn’t, is it? 

Mr. ORTEGA. We believe it’s more simple than that, Congressman. We believe that— 

Mr. HUNTER. And illegal, is it not? Are you claiming this is an 

illegal use of moneys? 

Mr. ORTEGA. We believe that we are subject to the judgment of 

the people. And if we’re telling people in a bond campaign that the 

moneys are going to be used in one way, and then it is used in a 

different way, next time we go to the voters to collect funds, to collect CalFed or other things, our collective credibility is at stake. 

And that’s what we believe. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask one last question, then, final question 

for you. 

If all the other water districts, San Diego, Imperial, Coachella, 

are for this agreement, Mr. Rinne, it’s your position that the Department of Interior supports the agreement, is it not, the QSA? 

Mr. RINNE. The Department of Interior certainly—at that point 

certainly would sit down and talk and try to work through the 

QSA. The reason I— 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you for the overwhelming vote of confidence. 

If it’s your understanding that all the other water districts support this, Mr. Ortega, is it your statement that you’re going to kill 

this water deal because of the factors that you’ve just discussed? 

If there’s no movement—in other words, if the State will not accommodate you and if the deal refuses to put this burden that the 

State’s picking up on the people of Imperial Valley, refuse to do 

what you have proposed in your proposal, is it your position you’re 

still going to kill the deal? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman— 

Mr. HUNTER. Because sometime you’ve got to make a choice. 

Mr. ORTEGA. Of course. We’re committed to working with the 

state administration. The Governor’s office requested our response 

to a financing tactic which took place about 2 weeks ago. We submitted our response. The other parties have submitted their responses. Metropolitan does not really know anything. This is very 

different than when we found ourselves on December 9th of 2002 

when the Imperial Irrigation District did vote no on the previous 

QSA that the parties had considered. 

Nobody has voted no here. The only thing that has happened is 

that Metropolitan would like to see unresolved issues with the 

other basin states come to a conclusion. And, also, we would like 

223

to make sure that the financing passes scrutiny for the long-term 

health of our reliability in Southern California. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Davis? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Davis is through Ms. Napolitano. 

Susan is wanting to ask anybody that can answer the question 

of what is missing in Senator Machado’s proposal of principles? 

Anybody? 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I refer that question and answer 

to one of our attorneys, David Osias? 

Mr. CALVERT. Ask how many people in the audience are attorneys? 

Mr. ALLEN. Why don’t you ask how many are farmers. 

Mr. CALVERT. For the record, will the gentleman enter his name? 

Mr. OSIAS. David Osias, outside counsel for the Imperial Irrigation District. 

And the proposal by Senator Machado had a concept rather than 

a detailed proposal for joining Salton Sea restoration with the 

transfers. What was missing, to go to the specific question, is how 

the QSA would be treated while Salton Sea restoration feasibility 

is studied; that is, the proposal that has hit the public domain of 

a possible desalination plan and the use of desalinated water for 

something either in lieu of transfer or use in Imperial Valley. 

The feasibility of that from a technical perspective, diking the 

damming, whether that’s even possible across the earthquake 

faults, isn’t known. The environmental review for that isn’t know. 

And the financial feasibility and cost of that isn’t known. And so 

the proposal itself did not identify what should happen in the 

meantime. 

Now, the responses that were addressed here sort of took two 

paths. One was we’ll put the QSA on hold until the answers are 

known. The other was—from the other three agencies was let the 

QSA go forward with a substitution concept if those things turn 

feasible. And the third, which we discussed with Senator Machado, 

is they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive anyway, that you 

could actually do both and accommodate it. 

So what was missing is what would happen while studying would 

go on and what would happen if the Salton Sea wasn’t found to be 

feasible to be restored in that manner. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else want to respond? 

Mr. CALVERT. Any response? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Ortega. 

Mr. ORTEGA. From the Metropolitan’s perspective, we’re anxious 

to work with the other parties in looking at all of the various alternatives in finding a lasting solution to the Salton Sea that would 

not trump the overall reliability that we must plan upon. 

The Interim Surplus Guidelines afford us the opportunity for 

transfer for surplus water on the Colorado River for a limited time, 

and, also, we’re going to be depending on this transfer from IID 

and San Diego. And an unfortunate thing that could happen if we 

get to the end of the period that we’re eligible for surplus, you are 

depending on the San Diego-IID transfer, and then the Salton Sea 

rises again is a factor because we ignored it. 

224

And this transfer history has been embedded with latent issues 

that have come back and haunted us, whether it’s the issue of 

third-party impacts of the Salton Sea. You have perchlorate that’s 

an issue that’s looming right now. And then you also have the Navajo nation lawsuit as well. So we believe we need to take this time 

to embrace those uncertainties and vent them through. And we’re 

looking forward to those discussions with the other parties. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mrs. Stapleton. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Thank you, sir. 

I think what is most interesting about the proposal and the work 

that we’re doing now is that we’re trying to incorporate the opportunities into the final QSA. This is radically different than where 

we were just even in December in that we didn’t have to paper the 

deal yet. This deal is completely papered. On March 12th, the four 

parties, the negotiators, signed that the deal was acceptable and 

that they would recommend it to their boards upon completion of 

the conditions precedent. So— 

Mr. CALVERT. And that included Metropolitan? 

Ms. STAPLETON. That included Metropolitan’s negotiators at the 

table who did sign that they would recommend support to their 

board upon completion of the conditions precedent. That is correct. 

I think with the Salton Sea is we do have an opportunity to, and 

under the State’s leadership and Senator Machado’s leadership, we 

are looking at a mechanism to execute the QSA to allow it to move 

forward, at the same time analyzing the feasibility of the restoration and providing for the opportunity for substitution or addition 

of that water as a result of those feasibility studies becoming complete. That is a positive step. 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Nichols. 

Ms. NICHOLS. I just wanted to add one additional thought, if I 

may, and that is that one of the opportunities that also arises as 

a result of the Machado proposal, which we also support in concept 

and want to work through, is that it gets back to the opportunity 

to invest in valley conservation as part of the overall future. It’s an 

issue that, as the focus has shifted to the Salton Sea, has kind of 

slipped from the front burner. 

But the long-term viability of agriculture in Imperial is still 

linked to improving the efficiency of water use if that can be done 

in a cost-effective manner. And that was at the heart of the original San Diego-IID deal. It’s kind of moved off to offstage. But I 

think from an environmental perspective, the issue of improving 

conservation and maintaining the viability of farming there is 

something that we at the state level also want to see happen. 

And so by allowing for this substitution of water, potentially, or 

addition of new supplies of water, in the long run, we’re really expanding and improving on the way that water is being used in 

Southern California. We think that’s one of the benefits that needs 

to be looked at as well. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Ms. Susan Davis, unfortunately, must leave. We thank you for 

coming here today, and she appreciates the hearing and the witnesses. And I hope you get better. 

Next, Mary Bono. 

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

225

First off, Director Guenther, I believe, I know you’re specifically 

water, but can you tell me that Arizona actually has no adverse impacts from a deteriorating Salton Sea? Are you aware of any? Does 

the smell ever reach over into Quartzsite? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Congresswoman Bono, only on a bad day. We’re 

not sure where the smell is coming from. 

Mrs. BONO. Oh, I can tell you where it’s coming from. 

Mr. GUENTHER. But, I mean, you know, I’ve studied the Salton 

Sea as a biologist. In fact, this panel right here is ranked by biologists. Mr. Rinne and myself both studied extensively desert environments, so we’re familiar with not only the challenges but the 

odors associated with the salt marshes and decay and seasonal deterioration of biological compounds. 

Mrs. BONO. So only on a bad day. Now, could it be said that if 

the shoreline recedes because of these transfers that those bad 

days would happen a lot more often? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Congresswoman Bono, I don’t really have that 

capability to predict. I do know that when you have a body of water 

from which there is no outflow, and you continue to load it with 

nutrients and salt, that that is the formula for a dead sea. 

Mrs. BONO. But you don’t know about a receding shoreline; correct? 

Mr. GUENTHER. About a receding shoreline? 

Mrs. BONO. The question is, is a receding. 

Shoreline—if more of these contaminants are exposed when the 

shoreline recedes, what will happen to the air quality? That’s the 

big question here. 

So if I—I know I should move along here. Because I wanted to 

ask that question. Thank you very much for that. Thank you for 

saying yes, you smell it in Arizona. That’s all I needed to know. 

But to move on to—and only on bad days too. 

The question is—and it gets to my new friend from Arizona—I 

think people think when they see me, they think the Salton Sea, 

that I’ve—and I’ve said it before—that I’ve got this passion for the 

sea to stay exactly as it is, and I don’t. I have a vision for a quality 

of life for people who live around the Salton Sea. And to keep some 

sort of sea alive, in my view, is critical because of the endangered 

species that it supports. So we agree on that, all of us here. 

But nobody here, Mr. Chairman, has ever done a study or can 

tell me with any certainty—even Mr. Robbins from Coachella Valley, and I ask the question to you, sir, what will happen when the 

shoreline recedes and this is exposed? You of all people might have 

that answer. 

Have you, in fact, studied that question, what will happen when 

these contaminants or whatever will be suddenly exposed, is airborne, and the people of the Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley 

then live with that. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Currently the Salton Sea authority is looking at 

that right now because it is a big unanswered question. Comparisons to the Owens Valley have been made. I don’t think those are 

valid comparisons. The soils are very different in Coachella Valley. 

The temperatures are very different. 

Mrs. BONO. Well, Mr. Robbins, you are free to prove that point. 

Nobody has stood in front of you saying, ‘‘Don’t prove to us the air 

226

quality won’t suffer.’’ You can completely convince everybody that 

the air quality will be fine to all of you. I pose the question—or put 

the challenge out, say to us air quality will be fine. And you 

haven’t done it. And the reason you haven’t done it is because 

you’re afraid what you’ll find out. And the people of the Coachella 

Valley are saying, enough. 

Yes, we know this is the keystone for water policy in California. 

‘‘Keystone’’ meaning the center part of the arch which supports the 

entire arch. That is what we understand, and we are willing—we 

have changed the notion of the Salton Sea. It could be one-third the 

size it is now. The environmentalists so far are even OK on this. 

We’ve come a long way, and you know that. But nobody is saying 

air quality. 

And I—Mr. Chairman, in the Committee I sit on in Congress is 

the Congress Committee, and I sit on the Energy and Air Quality 

Subcommittee, and we realize you can’t divorce energy from air 

quality. I don’t know how you think you can divorce air quality 

from water transfers. And in my view—thank you. I’m glad somebody’s happy about it. That’s why we’re here. Until we all recognize 

this is a factor, we’re going to be here. We’re going to be in this 

room day in and day out having this discussion until we realize the 

Salton Sea must be saved, some part of it, for the endangered species, and it must be saved—or the air quality must be addressed. 

We can do that. Heaven forbid—we built the Diamond Valley Lake. 

What was the price tag on that, Mr. Ortega? 

Mr. ORTEGA. 1.8 billion dollars. 

Mrs. BONO. 1.8 billion dollars, from a valley. And from nothing, 

and we built that. We can do this if the players finally realize it 

has to be done and quit thinking they can do this for free. And I’ve 

said we’re transferring water, we’re also transferring money. Until 

you study both, we’re going to be in this room. 

And we’ve had this, Ms. Stapleton, all of us have had this in the 

state, we’ve had this hearing. And until we say let’s—I know, 

what’s my question, Mr. Chairman, and I’m lecturing. I’m on my 

soap box. Ms. Stapleton is anxious to say something. Please do. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Congresswoman Bono, I think you make a very 

good point. It is—air quality is one of the standards that we must 

achieve in the overall environmental mitigation and enhancement 

program. Actually, part of that 200 million that we’re seeking from 

the State Funding, a huge chunk of that money is going to air 

quality. And you’re absolutely right here, until we get down to the 

details of exactly what’s going to happen, we do not, in fact, know 

what is the best opportunity, project, or program to address air 

quality. But I think you can hear from all four agencies that air 

quality is a standard we must meet, and it is something that we 

will achieve through the implementation of the enhancement programs. 

I would like to point out one thing, which is, if the 417 process 

is such that there is a large portion of water taken from Imperial 

Valley as part of this process, it will exceed the amount of the loss 

to the Salton Sea then equivalent to the 19th year of implementation of the water transfer. 

Mrs. BONO. Well, actually, you gave that to the Bureau. 

227

Ms. STAPLETON. Absolutely. Yes. And that’s something that 

needs to be watched by everyone is that the implications of the 417 

process on the Salton Sea could be horrific. 

Mrs. BONO. So this leads me to my—and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, you gave me a note. I said, ‘‘How long do we have for questions?’’ And you said, ‘‘As long as we need.’’ Big mistake. 

One last point, where we’re all getting here, I think, is to the Bureau of Rec. We have been waiting and waiting and waiting and 

trying to engage you all in determining a solution. And you are all 

very, very reluctant to do that, and you have put it back in our 

laps. We are not engineers. We don’t have engineers on our staffs. 

Can you explain the reluctance, the hesitancy of the Bureau to 

actually come up with a solution? 

Mr. RINNE. Congresswoman, I will respond by saying—and I 

think, hopefully, you’re aware of some of this, that there have been 

ongoing efforts with the Salton Sea inquiry with Reclamation. And 

even your comments about maybe the scope or the size with what 

ultimately the sea should look like, we’ve been working closely with 

people in the field with Salton Sea authority to see what other 

kinds of things might be looked at as far as concepts. 

And, again, I bring up, and I think one of the things that we 

probably need to look at is the geotechnical or subsurface nature 

of the Salton Sea, would it support dikes or some kind of an option 

that would be smaller. So I don’t think—and, I think, going back 

to the Act, I think the Act asks us to study, you know, and we have 

been working—I know you’ve been with us for a long time and 

you’re very much aware of that. 

We continue to work closely with the Salton Sea authority on 

this thing and trying to identify kinds of things we might do. I 

think that as far as any alternative, final alternative, we don’t see 

that as something that’s within the authority of the act. We’re not 

authorized to go out and fix the issue of the Salton Sea at this 

point, only to study the alternative. 

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlelady. 

Ms. Nichols, just for the record, how important is it to the state 

that the involved parties—that the Interim Surplus Flow Guideline 

be implemented? 

Ms. NICHOLS. Well, I think it’s fair to say we wouldn’t have invested the kind of time that has been invested by the Governor’s 

office, Secretary of Agriculture, by myself, and a number of members of the Legislature if we didn’t believe that getting the Interim 

Surplus Guidelines back is a critical part of providing for 

California’s water future in the most cost-effective and least disruptive way possible. 

We realize that the agreement was one that was reached prior 

to the current Federal administration, but we also understand that 

Secretary Norton intends to continue to abide by the Guidelines 

that were adopted. 

We are concerned, because after the failure of the—to meet the 

deadline by the four water agencies just on Christmas Eve—on 

New Year’s Eve, rather, of this year, that we heard that the bar 

had been raised, that there might be new actions that would be reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
228

quired of California, and we’ve not been able to get any clarification as to what that means. 

We don’t know, sitting here today, whether if all the parties were 

to sign the QSA and we were to submit it, that would result in the 

Interim Surplus Guidelines being reinstated. And we obviously are 

anxious to get clarification on that point. 

But—although, again, recognizing, as others have said, that 

weather is variable and we don’t know on a year-to-year basis exactly how much water might be available to California as a result 

of the Interim Surplus Guidelines. We feel that it would be beyond 

foolish. It would be reprehensible for us to walk away from the opportunity to have that 15-year soft landing that was intended by 

the Guidelines. 

Mr. CALVERT. While you’re here, I want to ask a couple of questions. Obviously when the Quantification Settlement Agreement 

was not agreed to as of the end of the year, as you mentioned, certain things started occurring: Metropolitan went north and bought 

some water from some rice farms up in Northern California; this 

has affected the entire state. And that has a direct effect on how 

we get that water from the northern part of the state down to the 

southern part of the state. And how the pumps are being operated 

at the banks right now is certainly an issue that we talked about 

when we were up in Northern California. 

And describe to us the process in which you’re going to work on 

to increase the pumping capacity at banks and still maintain water 

quality. 

Ms. NICHOLS. Well, Mr. Chairman, one of the key ingredients of 

the CalFed program has been to try to increase the amount of 

pumping on the state water project, and the state and the Federal 

water projects have been working very diligently on the operation. 

As you learned, and it came out, I believe, during your hearings 

over the weekend, much of the early work by the CalFed has been 

addressed to water supply reliability and water quality, keeping 

the ability that the water delivery is stable through, in effect, purchasing water for the environment through the environmental 

water guidelines. 

Mr. CALVERT. That’s obviously important. As you well understand, we front-loaded a lot of the environmental litigation in the 

CalFed process. There is a number of folks, including myself, that 

are frustrated about the ability to deliver water from the north to 

the south, especially after the large investments that we’ve made. 

And one of the things was a comment—and I’ll move for another 

question—is that the barriers, the temporary barriers on salt water 

intrusion into the Delta, apparently is not as successful as we 

would like them. We’d certainly like to move forward on permanent 

barriers so we can get the pumping capacity up to 8500 CFS as 

quickly as possible following your own environmental guidelines. 

And we believe that that pumping should take place, and that’s 

extremely important based upon what’s happening today, certainly 

with the Quantification Settlement Agreement. We want to come to 

an agreement as soon as possible and hope that we can by Thanksgiving, at least as the gentleman from Arizona has stated. But just 

in case, we better have our insurance policy in our back pocket. 

That means we’ll need to get our pumping capacity back up. 

229

One other question for Mr. Rinne. On the issue of the 417, if in 

fact the Federal Government involves itself in this allocation of 

water in California and reallocates water from Imperial County—

and obviously we’ll hear about this from Mr. Allen—if in fact that 

happens, what happens to the liability issues on third-party impact 

if in fact that water is reallocated and less water, in effect, by definition is going into the sea? Does that mean the Federal Government takes on the total liability of the Salton Sea because of that? 

Mr. RINNE. Congressman, if I may, if I’m understanding your 

question, our position would be that—it would be no. 

Mr. CALVERT. Why would that be the case? I mean, if you’re—

it’s affected by—because of the Federal Government, by its actions, 

if in fact there’s a reallocation of water, less water for Imperial 

County, less water going into the city, why wouldn’t that change 

the liability over to the Federal Government? 

Mr. RINNE. The view, or our position on that, Congressman, 

would be that if you think about 417 and approval of water orders, 

think about California and include IID, Coachella, Metropolitan, 

once there has been an approval on whatever the amount of water 

would be, and I’ll switch back to the IID, that amount of water, it’s 

not a—not something discretionary that we’re going to—we have a 

choice as to whether to do the 417, you know, to follow the reg. We 

would have to follow—we would have to carry it through. And we 

would look to the priority system in California. That’s what—as a 

matter of fact, that’s what’s happening now just with reduction of 

Coachella and to Metropolitan. 

Mr. CALVERT. That’s going to be another case in court, I suspect. 

With that, the court reporter needs to change her paper, and I’ll 

let her do that. 

[Off the record.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I ask the members’ consent that the official record of the Subcommittee hearings on Saturday, June 28th and also today’s hearing remain open through the close of business until Thursday, July 

31st for additional comment. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objections. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have a question that’s been in the back of my mind for the 

three major Southern California water agencies about the cost of 

water. 

How much does your agency pay per acre-foot to the Department 

of Interior? I’d like for each one of them to please answer. 

Mr. ALLEN. We don’t pay anything for the price of water because 

of your reclamation. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Carter? 

Mr. Carter. That’s correct. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Same answer for Coachella. 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Underwood has just informed me that it’s about 

25 cents per acre-foot. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Stranded costs. Would you explain stranded 

costs, please, Mr. Ortega. 

230

Mr. ORTEGA. Ms. Congresswoman, stranded cost is when you 

make an investment that you cannot derive that independently 

from. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The infrastructure. 

Mr. ORTEGA. It could be depending on how things go with a given 

project. That is one of the things, for example, that is part of the 

QSA package where there’s a 150 million dollar loan guarantee out 

of the state infrastructure bank that’s there to help to prevent that 

there be any stranded costs should this deal end prematurely for 

any reason. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Ms. Stapleton? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I’m just curious as to how much the water is 

going to cost in your area. Do you have any idea? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Right. As a member of the Metropolitan Water 

District, we pay the Metropolitan fees. We do not pay the Bureau 

directly. And those fees are set by Metropolitan and paid for by all 

our member agencies. So it’s $350 an acre-foot for untreated water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. $350. And I’m going into Northern California, and it was like $70 an acre-foot. And, of course, probably my state 

pays for more than 7600 an acre-foot; is that correct? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Right. By the time it gets through the retail sys- tems, our farm retail agencies probably pay between 5- and $750 

an acre-foot. That’s what their ratepayers pay. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And may I ask the same question of Arizona 

and Utah. 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Mr. Carter to explain the 

answer? 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Carter. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. And I believe Utah and Arizona will be recognized 

also, after Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Carter. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just an additional response to the question of the Chairman. The 

water that IID and Coachella receives is received through a contract because of prior rights to water on the River, and our contract 

provides that the there is no cost for that delivery. And what the 

district then does, of course, is charges the users in the Valley, 

both Coachella and in IID’s situation, for the cost of the delivery 

within the Valley, unlike Metropolitan Water District, who did not 

have prior rights to Colorado River water. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson, on behalf of the other basin states. 

Mr. ANDERSON. As far as Utah’s municipal water costs, they 

would vary anywhere from maybe $50 an acre-foot to $250 an acrefoot depending on where the water’s coming from. Central Utah 

project water is, I understand, delivered to the Salt Lake Valley for 

$250 an acre-foot. 

Mr. GUENTHER. In Arizona, we just pay the cost of delivery. That 

varies, of course, depending on the pumping requirements and electrical power generation requirements. And then any additional 

treatment, of course, is added to that. So our water used on the 

river is very inexpensive, and the water used in central Arizona for 

231

the central Arizona project can run up to probably $200 an acrefoot. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. NICHOLS. Hi, Mary. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just a question that hasn’t even begun to be 

discussed, and that’s the uranium mines have contaminated the 

Colorado river for the last decade and a half up in Moapa, and the 

fact that we’re not even considering should that become a problem 

for the southern states that it provides the water to, the fact that 

the solidity is increasing up in Colorado. 

Would you mind kind of going over what we as a state are going 

to be facing should anything—maybe mother nature decides to go 

right through that ten and a half million tons of contaminated uranium right 750 feet from the river and deliver that to us. What’s 

going to happen if we lose that ability to access water from 

Colorado? 

Ms. NICHOLS. I appreciate your efforts to bring attention to that 

issue, and I know that you and others have been trying to get 

something done about curtailing it and to try to prevent this damage from occurring. But at a fairly low level—and I don’t have the 

details with me. We could get you some information on that. We’re 

aware of the fact that the water could be rendered undeliverable, 

unusable, and obviously that would be a tragedy not only for the 

people who depend on the water, but for the whole ecosystem that 

would be affected. So it’s a very grave concern. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I’ll now pass the questioning to the other gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, one thing that I didn’t do when we opened this 

hearing is just acknowledge your leadership and the great job 

you’re doing not just for your district but for the entire State of 

California and your very important chairmanship, and to Ms. 

Napolitano, too, for everything she’s done and to Mary Bono for her 

great work on the Salton Sea. You’ve got a big load, Mr. Chairman. 

You’ve got massive, massive issues here. 

And I guess—I think it’s clear with this—what this hearing is 

basically shaping up in terms of a theme or the story of this water 

deal. You’ve got a QSA which would, I think, be readily signed by 

all parties except Metropolitan. And I think it’s time for Metropolitan to come to the table, sign this deal, and accept the terms that 

the elected representatives of California have put in place in terms 

of the help that they are going to give the participants in the water 

deal to make it economically feasible to go through with this. 

I would just ask the participants—Maureen Stapleton has done 

a great job with the San Diego County Water Authority. San 

Diego’s ready to go with this deal, the QSA; is that right? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Robbins, I take it Coachella feels this is critical, is that right? 

Mr. ROBBINS. That is correct. 

232

Mr. HUNTER. And, Mr. Allen, the Valley, the Imperial Irrigation 

District, the people of Imperial Valley are ready to go with the 

agreement; is that right? 

Mr. ALLEN. We sure are. 

Mr. HUNTER. And so, Mr. Ortega, you are the last party that 

needs to agree to this. And I’ve—you’ve explained why you think 

it’s not in the interest of Metropolitan to sign this thing up. But, 

you know, we’re in a business in which compromise is the order of 

the day. And I would hope that the Metropolitan Water District 

would finalize this agreement by being the last party to agree to 

sign it and do that in an expeditious manner, because California’s 

future depends on it. 

And all creatures which are created by the State of California, 

including big water districts, can be dissolved by the State of 

California or adversely affected by the State of California. So I 

would hope that Met would get on board here and make this thing 

go. Obviously you’ve received other cards and letters to that effect 

from folks. 

Is there any—do you see—in the next several months, do you see 

a way we can get through this without Met getting its way in 

terms of putting this burden on Imperial Valley? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, Mr. Chairman, Metropolitan agreed 

on March 12th to take before its board the QSA once the conditions 

precedent that are therein stated are fulfilled, and there’s several 

items that need to happen within that framework before anybody 

signs. IID, for example, must resolve its issues with the Federal 

Government. The State of California must pass the appropriate environmental and financing legislation, if its necessary. There is the 

Arizona payback issue that needs to be resolved amongst the parties, and those issues are outstanding. 

We have provided within the sponsorship of the Governor of 

California a proposal that we hope to engage the other parties with 

within the coming weeks. Our CEO, our chief negotiator, our general counsel, our chairman, and our negotiating team are very 

heavily involved, and we are looking forward and are encouraged 

that we can have a long-term solution that doesn’t leave the Salton 

Sea, for example, with an outstanding issue that we’re going to 

come back and have to visit when my son’s in high school in 15 

years. So we’re hoping for a long-term solution. 

Mr. HUNTER. But your proposal, the one that I see summarized 

here, proposes to have a $6 an acre-foot paid for by the participants 

in the transfer. And the shorthand on this is that basically the people of Imperial County who experience approximately a 23 percent 

unemployment rate now would bear the 70 percent of the burden 

of that particular outlay. 

Is the proposal that we’ve got summarized here, is that the proposal you’re talking about bringing forth with great gusto to the 

State? Are we talking about the same proposal? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, you are correct. There is an issue of 

who pays. And with the Chairman’s permission, we’d like to submit 

a chart that will illustrate where the contention is. 

Mr. ORTEGA. In this chart, there’s a small sliver here that pertains to the cost of the transfer. The question is who pays. Under 

the Metropolitan proposal, IID would pick up a fraction of the cost. 

233

And the benefit that we perceive that they get is that they’ll be 

able to get an overall subsidy through the other parties to sell 

water in the long term at market rates. 

Also, in the proposal that was made by the three parties, that 

cost would shift to the State. And we’re looking forward to dealing 

with the State and engaging the State and the other parties to 

come to an accommodation on who pays. 

The fear that we have is the precedent. And that precedent is 

that water transfers in the State of California, given the history 

that we’ve been instrumental in creating over the last several 

years, cannot afford to subsidize water transfers. And once you 

have this precedent out there, it will become very difficult to sustain this, especially given all the other challenges and other municipal issues out there before us today. 

Mr. HUNTER. What you’ve offered, though, Mr. Ortega, in your 

proposal is something that should be equally, if not more, repugnant than what you’ve just described. And that is that farming 

communities which are asked to give up a portion of their water 

for the use of other Californians, now for that privilege of giving 

up the use of their water to other Californians, get to have attached to their responsibility massive environmental liability. 

And I don’t see how you can hold that out as a model for other 

farm districts, which might at some point want to come forth and 

say, we’ll tell you what, if you will finance these conservation 

measures, we’ll undertake them and we’ll share the benefits with 

you. 

And I think it’s clear to all parties that it was never intended 

that Imperial Valley be liable for the reclamation of the Salton Sea. 

For practical purposes, that’s the effect of your proposal. 

I see you disagree with that notion. 

Mr. ORTEGA. Congressman, with all due respect, what we believe 

is that all over California agricultural districts have come forward. 

The Sacramento rice deal—it took us 3 months to negotiate it. It’s 

taken 7 years to get us here on the IID proposal. IID should not 

be held liable for the Salton Sea. We do have a proposal that we’ve 

set forth that would prevent that liability and that would address 

long-term issues to assure that forever, hopefully, IID would not 

have to be liable. So I think we’re closer than we think. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr Chairman, I just 

wanted to note, too, that Glenn Baxley is here, who’s Ms. Congresswoman Bono’s husband, who is a great baseball player in this 

town, and San Diego needs great baseball. We’d like to sign him 

up before he leaves. 

Mr. BAXLEY. They need more than one. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Glenn. 

Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Thanks to all the parties for your participation. We need to make 

this deal. We need to make it now. We need to get it done before 

the summer’s over. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Bono, you have any further questions for this 

panel? We’d like to move to the next panel, our last panel. 

Mrs. BONO. Is that a hint, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CALVERT. What’s that? 

234

Mrs. BONO. Is that a subtle hint? No. I recognize we’re down to 

the final hour, and I’m happy to move to the next panel. 

Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate that. 

Any other questions? Thank you very much. 

We thank this panel. We appreciate your coming out and doing 

this, and stick around. I’m sure we’ll have more questions for you 

later. 

Next, I would like to recognize our next panel, Ms. Grace Burgess, the Executive Director of the San Gabriel Water Authority; 

Ms. Francis Spivy-Weber, the Co-Convenor of the Southern 

California Water Dialogue; Mr. Stephen Hall, the Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agencies; and Ms. Julie 

Puentes, Executive Vice President of Public Affairs for the Orange 

County Business Council. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And, again, we’re back and reconvened 

at our hearing. And just to reiterate, we’re under the 5-minute 

rule. We thank this panel for being here, and we’ll start off with 

Ms. Grace Burgess, Executive Director of the San Gabriel Water 

Quality Authority. We thank you very much for attending, and 

you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF GRACE BURGESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 

Ms. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman, Committee members and staff, my name’s Grace 

Burgess. I’m the executive director of the San Gabriel Basin Water 

Quality Authority. And let me also express my appreciation to Congresswoman Grace Napolitano for inviting us as an agency to testify this afternoon. 

Our agency was created by the State Legislature in 1993 to plan, 

coordinate and accelerate the San Gabriel Basin groundwater 

cleanup efforts. Since its inception, the WQA has funded projects 

that have removed many, many tons of contaminants from the 

groundwater basin, and we’re in the process of constructing four 

more major groundwater treatment systems, multiple treatment 

terrains involved, that will supply 28,000 gallons per minute just 

with those four major projects that are actively in construction or 

design. 

We’ve benefited from two Federal programs in the San Gabriel 

Basin. First was the Title 16 through the United States Bureau of 

Reclamation Program. And, also, more recently, the Restoration 

Fund, which is also administered through the United States Bureau of Reclamation. These two programs have been the catalyst in 

the success of our remediation efforts. Both programs have enabled 

us to continue the collaborative approach of merging cleanup with 

water supply. It’s allowed us to leverage Federal dollars, local funding and responsible parties, the businesses who cause the contamination, to come to the table and work together and address all of 

these problems at the same time. 

Through the leadership of Congressman David Dreier and the 

members of the San Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation, Congress created the Restoration Fund in December of 2000. The Restoration Fund will provide 75 million dollars in Federal funding for 

235

groundwater cleanup in the main San Gabriel Basin. And I’d like 

to add that the basin serves probably about one and a half million 

residents and citizens alone and is threatening an aquifer just 

south of us, which is the Greater LA Area Central Basin, which is 

another 3 million residents. 

The Restoration Fund has provided much needed funding for 

local groundwater cleanup efforts, and we’ve provided this as an incentive to participate in the cleanup. And when there is no PRP 

money, responsible parties money, coming forth, the Restoration 

Fund is a godsend because we’ve spent millions on our own local 

use since the early ’90’s. 

The Title 16 program, the other Federal program, has also provided much needed capital funds to build wellhead treatment and 

stop the flow of contamination. In the northern part of our valley—

OK. In the northern part of our valley, which is the base of the San 

Gabriel mountains, the flow is pretty slow. The migration is about 

3 feet, 5 feet per year. But the further south toward the central 

basin and the Greater LA Area, it flows at 3 feet per day. And so 

it’s a problem that has escalated not only because of the time involved in trying to clean this up, but also the new contaminations 

that are found because of detection levels and other better science, 

and perchlorate being the main problem. 

In the time period since the Basin Restoration Fund and the 

Title 16 program were made available to the Water Quality Authority, many projects have been allocated funding. Those projects 

have already been built, and several others are currently under 

construction, and completion is expected very soon. 

We’ve just recently closed our third round of Federal funding applications to all of the constituents, water providers, in the valley, 

and we have 14 brand-new projects that were unexpected, ranging 

from perchlorate problems to—one for dioxane and NDMA and all 

kinds of BOC suits. And so we have a lot of problems, and the reliability on our own basin is critical. It is a huge reservoir of water, 

natural resource that can be used to store water, if only we could 

clean that up. 

Water from our wells, without the contamination problems, it’s 

very, very inexpensive to pump. It’s $50 an acre-foot, approximately. But with the current price of the Colorado River water, 

MWD water, it’s something that would be—it has become very, 

very difficult for us to handle. So we’ve tried to address our problem, clean up our contamination, and rely on our own water, which 

is still less than MWD water. And it does help the rest of the state, 

who doesn’t have to—so that we don’t have to rely on that water 

source. 

So Federal assistance is key to us not impacting the rest of the 

state. It’s a huge issue, and we appreciate the Federal—the Congress and everybody’s assistance and appreciate our time today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burgess follows:]

Statement of Grace Burgess, Executive Director,

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Committee members and staff. My name is Grace 

Burgess and I am the Executive Director of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality 

Authority (WQA). Let me express my appreciation to Congresswoman Grace 

Napolitano for inviting the WQA to testify this morning. 

236

The WQA was created by the California State Legislature in 1993 to plan, coordinate and accelerate the San Gabriel Basin groundwater cleanup efforts. Since its 

inception the WQA has funded projects that have removed over 10 tons of contaminants from the groundwater basin. 

The WQA has benefited from two Federal programs the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund and the Title XVI program. These two programs have been a catalyst 

in the success of our remediation efforts. Both programs have enabled us to continue 

the collaborative approach of merging cleanup with water supply. It has allowed us 

to leverage Federal dollars and local funding to bring all parties to the table and 

work in a manner that addresses multiple issues at the same time. 

Through the leadership of Congressman David Dreier and the members of the 

San Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation, Congress created the San Gabriel 

Basin Restoration Fund in December of 2000. The Restoration Fund will provide 

$75 million in Federal funding for groundwater restoration projects in the Main San 

Gabriel Basin. The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund has provided much needed 

funding for local groundwater remediation efforts. Congressman Dreier and his colleagues moved to establish the Restoration Fund as a means of expediting the remediation of groundwater. 

The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund has provided an incentive for the Responsible Parties in the basin to participate in the cleanup and reach funding agreements with affected purveyors. The funding has also allowed the San Gabriel Basin 

Water Quality Authority, Watermaster and the affected purveyors to fund projects 

without PRP participation. Without this additional Federal funding the potential for 

additional well closures would be great and the need for imported water a necessity. 

The Title XVI program has provided the San Gabriel Basin with the ability to provide much needed wellhead treatment, stem the flow of contaminants, stabilize 

water rates and most importantly deliver safe and reliable drinking water to the 

residents of the San Gabriel Basin. 

In the time period since the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund and Title XVI 

program were made available to the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 

ten projects have been allocated funding. Seven projects have been built and another 

three are currently under construction with completion expected by the end of summer. 

Without the funding for the treatment facilities local water producers would have 

been forced to shut down water wells due to migrating contamination. The closures 

would have forced local water purveyors to become reliant on Colorado River water 

at a time that the state’s allotment is being cutback. This would have severely impaired our ability to provide water for users in the basin and forced us to rely on 

imported water. 

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

supply to homes and businesses. The current price for an acre-foot of treated, readyto-drink Colorado River water in the high-demand summer period is $425. The typical cost to pump, treat and deliver an acre-foot of local San Gabriel Basin groundwater is $50. 

It is vital that we restore the basin’s aquifer. Once we are able to remediate the 

contamination it is our belief that the Valley will be able to use the aquifer to meet 

all of the basin’s water needs. Removing harmful contaminants from our communities groundwater supply will allow local water producers to better meet the needs 

of local residents at affordable rates and makes certain that the basin is able to 

meet the water supply needs of future generations. 

The Federal assistance provide by the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund and 

the Title Xvi program have allowed us to carry out our mission of facilitating 

groundwater cleanup and providing a clean, reliable drinking water supply for the 

1 million residents of the San Gabriel Basin. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on the progress and success of the cleanup 

of the San Gabriel Basin today. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlelady. And we’ll say goodbye to 

Mrs. BONO. 

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Ms. Frances Spivy-Weber is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

237

STATEMENT OF FRANCES SPIVY-WEBER,

MONO LAKE COMMITTEE 

Ms. SPIVY-WEBER. Thank you. I am here representing the Mono 

Lake Committee. I’m also the co-chair of the Southern California—

the Southern California Committee for—that is made up of organizations that are public agencies, private agencies, and we call ourselves the Southern California Water Dialogue because we are trying through dialog to find ways to meet the water needs of Southern California, particularly, and in cooperation with Northern 

California. 

The issue that I was asked to focus on today is our methods to 

ensure a reliable water supply to Southern California regardless of 

a quick resolution to the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 

I want to underscore something that Maureen said in her testimony earlier, and that is that it is not a question of one or the 

other should there be a Quantification Settlement Agreement or 

local projects or other projects. We must have both. Even with a 

Quantification Settlement agreement, the aqueduct will only be 80 

percent full. So I will focus on these other issues that are going to 

be essential if we’re going to have the flexibility that we need as 

a region. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. CALVERT. I’m sorry. Go ahead. 

Ms. SPIVY-WEBER. Among those—I won’t go through all of the 

ones that are in my testimony, but I will mention those where the 

Federal Government is extremely important. One has been mentioned by Congresswoman Napolitano, and that is recycled water. 

Right now the region, Southern California, uses about 450,000 

acre-feet of recycled water per year. Over the next 10 years, we 

could increase—we could double that amount to 900,000 acre-feet 

of water, but the Bureau has now decided to act to put in its 2004 

budget only 12 million dollars rather than the normal 34 million 

that has been allocated in the past. We are saying that we—the 

Federal Government is saying that it does not value the ability of 

this region to create a 500 million acre-feet over the next 10 years. 

This is extremely important water. 

Another area that I work in very—that I work in a lot is water 

conservation. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California has estimated that over the—by 2025, at least 1.1 million acre-feet of water can come from conservation. Again, the Bureau has the opportunity to invest largely in these new conservation measures, many of them affecting landscape water use, also 

commercial, industrial, and institutional water investments. And I 

think this is a conservative estimate of what we can achieve over 

the next 20 to 25 years. 

A third area that is extremely important is brackish water desalination brine lines. In Southern California, right now, about 

75,000 acre-feet of brackish water is being desalted and used and 

made a valuable part of our water supply. By 2015, Southern 

California agencies estimate this amount could increase to 200,000 

acre-feet, again, an extremely important area for investment by the 

Bureau. 

We heard from the previous speaker about contaminant treatment. Again, in Southern California, there are tremendous groundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
238

water basins that need to be cleaned up, and investments in those 

cleanups will make this area much more self-sufficient, particularly 

in a drought or in a situation of an earthquake or other global 

warming, whatever the tragedy might be in the future that we 

would have to face. If we have these projects, these local projects, 

this local capacity to be flexible, we will be much better able to 

weather those storms. And those storms will come. We know that. 

We know that from the past. 

Other areas that are offering promise, certainly we heard about 

water transfers from Northern California earlier today. Storm 

water runoff and making better use of storm water runoff is important. In Los Angeles, we get 12 inches of rain a year. That water 

is being captured in some demonstration projects now in the San 

Fernando Valley and captured in cisterns, going back to old-fashioned technologies, at schools and institutions, and that water is 

being used for landscape watering. And, again, this offers an opportunity in many parts of Southern California to make better use of 

storm water as a water supply. 

Watershed management is increasing. Ocean desalination has 

been mentioned a few times today already. It’s estimated that 

ocean desal at this point could supply 150,000 acre-feet per year. 

We have a State task force that’s looking at what the issues are 

associated with ocean desal, and my hope is that we will be able 

to figure out ways to use it. 

I don’t think ocean desalination is—or any of these measures are 

the answer. All of them must be pursued, and the Federal Government, I hope, will be a strong partner and player in pursuing these. 

And, finally, I would like to wear my Mono Lake Committee hat 

and emphasize how important it is that the Bay-Delta authority 

work with the stakeholders to—and this would be the Federal part 

of the CalFed program as well, to develop a mechanism to ensure 

that investments in these water supply, water stretching activities 

actually will in part accrue—the benefits will, in fact, accrue to the 

environment. For example, the San Diego Watershed Project Authority has set the goal of being able to roll off the Delta for 3 years 

during a drought. 

The question that many of us had is, how will we be sure that 

this benefit does, in fact, give water to the environment? And my 

suggestion is that possibly the investments in meeting our droughtyear options down in Southern California could become part of the 

environmental water account. Those investments would count toward the environmental water account. And I thank you for this 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spivy-Weber follows:]

Statement of Frances Spivy-Weber, Executive Director for Policy,

Mono Lake Committee, Redondo Beach, California 

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with the House Subcommittee on Water 

and Power. I wear several water policy hats in Southern California and statewide. 

Regionally, I serve as the co-chair of the Southern California Water Dialogue, a 

multi-stakeholder group that meets monthly to discuss water issues. The Dialogue 

also serves as a Southern California focal point for the CalFed Bay-Delta Authority, 

providing information to CalFed about the region and transmitting information 

about the region to CalFed. CalFed has provided the Dialogue with a consultant 

staff person for 18 months, who works closely with the volunteer steering committee 

and other Dialogue participants. 

239

Statewide, I serve on the CalFed Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee and am 

co-chair of the Water Use Efficiency Subcommittee. This year, I am the convener 

of the California Urban Water Conservation Council, and I am a member of the 

State Advisory Committee to the California Water Plan. My organization, the Mono 

Lake Committee, supports my work on regional and statewide water policy because 

Mono Lake, located at the northernmost end of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, is being 

restored to health in large part because the Committee was successful is having 

state and Federal funding made available to Los Angeles for conservation and water 

reclamation projects. These projects are supplying more than enough water to replace the water being left in Mono Basin streams that feed Mono Lake. 

The goal of this hearing is to consider methods to ensure a reliable water supply 

to Southern California regardless of a quick resolution to the Quantification Settlement Agreement, commonly called the QSA. I must add to this goal the need for 

high quality drinking water in the region. 

Current Supplies 

Water supplies used in Southern California come from several sources. Those 

sources include about half from imported water supplies and the other half from 

local supplies within the coastal plain of Southern California. The imported water 

sources are from northern California via the State Water Project (SWP); the 

Colorado River (CRA); and the Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA). Local supplies are primarily groundwater and southern California mountain streamflow, recycled, and 

desalinated brackish groundwater. In addition, the region has successfully reduced 

demand for water over 15% since the mid-1980s through implementation of conservation Best Management Practices. 

State Water Project 

MWD has imported an average of 1 MAF from the State Water Project during 

the past decade. However, during a drought, SWP delivery to MWD can be as low 

as 400,000 AF. The maximum deliveries to Southern California during wet periods 

are limited to about 1.7 MAF because of pumping limitations in the State Water 

Project. The proposed South Delta improvements might increase wet year pumping 

by approximately 200,000 AF. 

Colorado River Deliveries 

California has a long-term allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet per year from the 

Colorado River, with 3.85 MAF allocated to Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella 

Valley Water District, Palo Verde Irrigation District and the Yuma project, and 

550,000 to MWD. In past years, the MWD has imported an additional 700,000 AF 

of surplus water. The Colorado River delivery to MWD with QSA is about 900,000 

AF, compared to historic averages of 1.2 MAF, resulting in keeping the Aqueduct 

at 80% capacity. 

Eastern Sierra Nevada 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power imports between 300,000-400,000 

acre-feet of water per year, but in future years it is likely to import less than 

200,000 acre-feet on average, because of dust control and restoration obligations in 

the Owens Valley and the Mono Basin 

Drought Imports 

If drought occurs throughout California and/or the West, southern California 

could face importing as little as 1.1 million acre-feet of water. To make up the 50% 

shortfall, the region must turn to conservation measures, transfers, local groundwater and surface water storage withdrawals, and new local supply projects. In addition most of these supplemental measures can be used to improve water quality, 

storm water management and address groundwater contamination. These measures 

will be the focus of my presentation. 

Groundwater, Recycled Water, Desalinated Brackish Water 

The Southern California region produces on average about 1.3 million-acre feet 

per year of groundwater. During droughts the groundwater production can increase 

by approximately 500,000 AF. The region uses approximately 450,000 acre-feet per 

year of recycled water and 75,000 acre-feet of desalinated brackish water. Both recycled water and desalinated groundwater will increase significantly over the next 

decade. Recycled water is projected to double to about 900,000 AF over the next ten 

years, and groundwater desalting will more than double to 200,000 AF by 2015. 

Demographics of the Region 

Southern California includes the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura with a population of approximately 

240

19.6 million people. In 2025, the Southern California Association of Governments 

and the San Diego Association of Governments predict the region’s population will 

be in the range of 26.4 million people. While there is still significant agriculture in 

the region, the trend is toward greater urbanization. 

Methods to Achieve Water Supply Reliability and Water Quality in the Region 

In order for Southern California to achieve water supply reliability and water 

quality in the region, its water agencies and citizens must enhance the current 

sources of local water supply, as well possibly add new technologies and approaches. 

Groundwater 

The Southern California region produces on average about 1.3 million-acre feet 

per year of groundwater, and during droughts an approximately 500,000 AF can be 

produced. Groundwater storage and conjunctive use are strong candidates for meeting the region’s water supply and water quality needs. A recent study by the Association of Groundwater Agencies found over 22 million acre-feet of unused capacity 

in Southern California groundwater basins, and while much of this capacity may not 

be feasible, the following groundwater basins are identified as having the potential 

of an approximately 1 million acre-feet per year increase in annual operational yield 

for the region: Ventura County Basins, San Fernando Valley, Main San Gabriel 

Basin, West and Central Basins, Orange County Basin, Chino Basin, San Diego 

County Basins, Mojave River Basins, and Coachella Valley Basin. 

Recycled Water 

The region uses approximately 450,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water. An 

unpublished Bureau of Reclamation Study estimated the region’s additional potential is 451,500 acre-feet per year over the next ten years. Now is the time for the 

Department of the Interior (and the Bureau of Reclamation) and the Congress to 

increase its financial support of Title XVI grant funding in Southern California. 

Currently the Bureau of Reclamation has requested only $12 million in its FY 2004 

budget. During the past few years, Congress has appropriated about $34 million 

each year. This is the most cost effective investment the Bureau could make in new 

supplies. 

Conservation 

Through urban conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) and strong community-based programs, the region has successfully reduced demand by 15% since 

the mid-1980s. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) currently estimates conservation savings at 653,800 acre-feet per year. MWD’s urban 

target for 2025 is 1.1 million acre-feet, an additional 446,000 acre-feet per year. 

And, in my opinion this target will be surpassed with new and aggressive programs 

to reduce landscape water use and to target commercial, industrial and institutional 

customers to use new devices that save water in cooling towers, x-ray machines, 

spray-rinse valves in commercial kitchens, water brooms, as well as low-flow toilets 

and landscape savings. In addition, there is opportunity for improvements in some 

agricultural sectors. 

Water Transfers 

In 2003, MWD concluded eleven water transfer agreements with Northern 

California farmers in the amount of 167,200 acre-feet. Not all the offers for water 

sales were accepted, indicating possibly greater potential in the future. 

Contaminant Treatment 

Water quality, rather than supply, is likely to be the limiting factor in meeting 

Southern California’s water needs. Source water protection of imported water and 

local groundwater basins and drinking water quality treatment projects are essential to achieving the water supply and water quality goals of the region. 

Brackish Water Desalination 

Salt loading in Southern California is a large problem that is growing. A number 

of agencies desalt approximately 75,000 AF of brackish water to expand the region’s 

water supply, particularly groundwater. By 2015 southern California water agencies 

estimate this amount will increase to 200,000 AF and will continue to increase as 

imported water supplies become less reliable. Investments in additional treatment 

and brine lines will be critical to increasing usable locally impaired water supplies. 

Storm Water Runoff 

Projects are underway in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties and at the 

Inland Empire Utility Agency to examine the potential water supply benefit from 

capturing and reusing rainfall. For example, it rains 12 inches a year in Los AngeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
241

les, and much of this water is shunted off into storm drains. There are demonstration projects in Los Angeles County where schools and institutions have buried cisterns under their landscape and are collecting and filtering storm water for use in 

future irrigation. There are many, similar opportunities throughout the region. 

Watershed Management 

There are 40-50 watershed organizations in Southern California. Investments in 

watershed projects and in building greater capacity of these groups will contribute 

to better coordination among surface and groundwater suppliers, water quality 

agencies, development agencies, environmental and business interests. The result 

should be greater water savings, efficiencies, and improved water quality. The Santa 

Ana Watershed Project Authority, the largest of the watershed organizations in the 

region, is committed to being able to role off the State Water Project for three years 

in a drought if it can implement its watershed plan. 

Ocean Desalination 

Several water agencies and local jurisdictions are examining the feasibility of 

ocean desalination. It is estimated that ocean desalination could supply 150,000 

acre-feet per year. There is great interest in tapping into ocean water as a source 

of new water for the region. The State of California has established an ocean desalination task force to look at the feasibility of this approach, and many anticipate this 

will become a part of the water supply mix for the region in the future. The hurdles 

for ocean desalination include environmental concerns, growth in previously inaccessible places along the coast, and cost, particularly energy costs. 

Environmental Benefits from Local and Regional Water Supply Investments 

Wearing my Mono Lake Committee hat, it is also very important that the CalFed 

Bay Delta Authority work with stakeholders to develop a mechanism to ensure that 

investments in water supply reliability and water quality described above also have 

direct benefits to watersheds and aquatic systems in the region and in the Delta. 

For example, when the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) sets a 

goal of being able to roll off the Delta for three years during a drought, there must 

be a clear way of tracking this benefit back to more water for the Delta ecosystem. 

Perhaps SAWPA’s capacity to meet drought year supplies could be a part of the Environmental Water Account. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share with you the many ways in which 

the region is attempting to meet its needs over and above the important efforts to 

find a resolution to the Quantification Settlement Agreement. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions now or in the future. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlelady. 

And with the ACWA, Association of California Water Agencies, 

old friends, Mr. Stephen Hall. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN HALL, ASSOCIATION OF 

CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES, ACWA 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be remiss if I 

didn’t begin by thanking you on behalf of the California Water 

Community for your leadership on these issues. Not very many political agents invest the time and energy that you have, and we 

very much appreciate it. And the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Napolitano, was not too far behind you, and we appreciate all of 

your efforts. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. I was asked to respond to the same question as 

Frances Spivy-Weber. And let me just say in response to the question about whether California can meet its needs with or without 

a QSA, I begin by saying the QSA is an extremely important component in meeting our water needs. We believe that it can be done, 

it should be done, and that it will be done. 

We represent the four agencies that are parties to this agreement, and we also represent some 450 other water agencies around 

242

the state who are all looking anxiously at this agreement hoping 

that it gets done. Because what we’ve learned today and in the 

past is that all of our water supplies are inextricably linked, and 

what affects one source of supply affects the other. 

That’s why we so strongly agree with your statement, Mr. Chairman, that the current impacts on the Colorado River makes it even 

more important that we resolve the issues in the Bay-Delta and 

that we firm up the water supplies, the water quality, and the environmental health of the Bay-Delta so that we can continue to 

meet the state’s water needs regardless what happens with the 

QSA. Though, I have to say, again, my association very strongly 

supports the work of the agencies in trying to reach an agreement 

there. 

We also agree, Mr. Chairman, with the seven points that you 

made in your press releases about the important elements embedded in CalFed; that is, surface storage, improved conveyance, 

streamlining environmental regulations, providing new yield 

through conventional means as well as desalting and recycling, 

banking and transfers, protection of property rights including area 

of origin protections, and groundwater management. 

We’ve been working on CalFed for a long time, not only because 

it’s a blueprint for California to resolve its conflicts and to put policies and plumbing and technology and water transfers in place to 

meet our needs, but we really do believe that it can be a model for 

the west. 

As you’ll look around the west, you see Klamath; you see the silvery minnow issue in New Mexico; you see the Columbia River, the 

Colorado River. All of these major rivers throughout the west have 

very similar conflicts to what we’re seeing in California and the 

Bay-Delta. And we think CalFed is the right approach to resolving 

those. 

In fact, if you look at the Department of Interior’s recent 

issuance of its 2025 plan that rolled out, it looks remarkably similar to CalFed. And Interior officials will acknowledge that’s not an 

accident. They looked at CalFed when they put it together because 

they agree it’s a blueprint. That’s why we think CalFed has to be 

a full partnership between the state and Federal Governments and 

local water agencies. 

We think the Federal Government, in particular, has a very real 

interest in seeing the CalFed program succeed. It’s the operator of 

the largest water project in the state, the central valley project. It 

has very broad environmental regulatory responsibilities through 

the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and others. And I think it’s clear now that if we can 

resolve these issues in the Bay-Delta, it can be a precedent for solving them in other river systems through the west. 

It was little noticed, but very important, the testimony you received from the Federal agencies in Elk Grove. I read that testimony carefully. It says the right things. It says they have all the 

authorities that they need, virtually. Unfortunately, they don’t 

often act like they have all the authority they need. They’re not 

very heavily engaged in the CalFed process. The Department of Interior has been substantially more involved than the other Federal 

agencies that have responsibilities, and I think it’s fair to say the 

243

Department of Interior has not always agreed with the Davis administration on how best to proceed, but at least they’ve been at 

the table. 

That has not been true of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, nor has it been entirely true of the Army Corps of 

Engineers. They don’t engage—they don’t even work together collaboratively as Federal agencies to try to figure out who’s got what 

responsibilities and how it’s going to be exercised. And that has to 

change. We will not succeed unless it does. That’s why we need authorizing legislation at the Federal level. 

And here are a few of the elements that we think must be embedded in the legislation which we hope you will introduce soon 

and which we expect to support: It needs to direct and authorize 

the Federal agencies to participate. It needs to provide specific authorities where those are needed beyond what they already have. 

It needs to provide for a crosscut budget among those agencies so 

there’s proper accounting of expenditures. It needs to address 

water quality concerns including improved source water quality in 

dealing with such issues as perchlorate and other contaminants in 

ground and surface water. It needs to authorize enough Federal 

funding to get the jobs done. 

I know you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members of Congress have 

been frustrated over the lack of progress of some elements of 

CalFed, particularly surface storage and conveyance. I can tell you 

I co-chair the Water Supply Subcommittee, Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, and right now we’re falling far behind on our 

schedule for surface storage investigations because there is not 

enough money either at the state or the Federal level. We need to 

improve that funding source in order to keep the program in balance. 

The legislation needs to make it clear that private property 

rights in area of origin protection will be in place. And, finally, it 

needs to authorize participation at the Federal level under governance structure so that we have a lasting partnership between the 

state, Federal Governments and local agencies that endures beyond 

present administrations on into the future. 

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think you know this, but I’ll 

repeat it, we’ve worked closely with you, and we respect very much 

your leadership on this issue. We pledge our continued support as 

you move forward with the legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

Statement of Stephen K. Hall, Executive Director,

Association of California Water Agencies 

INTRODUCTION: 

My name is Steve Hall. I am the Executive Director of the Association of 

California Water Agencies (ACWA). We represent local water agencies across the 

state of California and our members are collectively responsible for 90% of the water 

delivered in California. Our smallest member serves fewer than 50 people and our 

largest serves over 17 million urban Southern Californians. The purpose of my testimony is to respond to the question posed by the Subcommittee regarding a reliable 

water supply in California with or without a Quantification Settlement Agreement 

(QSA) among the California agencies using Colorado River water as well as to provide background on water management in California, to describe the measures 

being taken by local water agencies and the additional resources that will be needed 

to meet the state’s water needs into the future. 

244

WATER DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA: 

Today California’s water systems support over 35 million people in one of the 

world’s largest economies. The state’s water infrastructure is a network of projects, 

large and small, assembled over decades and with scores of different funding 

sources. ACWA and its member agencies have played a major role in every one of 

California’s major water development efforts and have, in recent years, been among 

those leading the way toward restoration of aquatic environments throughout the 

state. 

Much of California’s water development has been the result of three inescapable 

facts regarding natural water distribution in the state. The first of these facts is 

that most of California’s population centers and leading industries are located far 

from where precipitation and resulting runoff occur. Second, that the precipitation 

occurs almost exclusively during the months of November and April with the other 

months of the year being virtually dry. Third, the precipitation and runoff patterns 

from year to year are highly variable with many years below normal or dry and 

other years above normal or wet. 

These three facts have mandated that California develop storage and conveyance 

systems that capture water when and where it occurs and transport it when and 

where it is needed. It is a system that has allowed California to grow and to prosper, but in recent years has become increasingly unreliable, both because investment in the infrastructure system has slowed considerably and because of reallocation of water away from homes, farms and businesses back to the environment in 

response to the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. 

These two very powerful forces have been directed primarily at those projects that 

have exported water from one hydrologic basin to another, either in the Bay-Delta, 

the Owens Valley or from the Colorado River. Local supplies have become increasingly important to the state, as imported supplies have declined in reliability and 

in absolute yield. Increasingly, local water agencies have developed and extended 

local supplies through progressive conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, 

water conservation, water reclamation, desalting and other innovative means. This 

initiative on the part of local agencies has allowed them to meet most of the state’s 

water needs despite reallocation of water supplies and despite dwindling investment 

in infrastructure at the state and Federal level. However, without some changes in 

policy and plumbing, these local initiatives will yield diminishing returns as water 

demand through conservation and reclamation hardens and as opportunities become 

fewer and more expensive to pursue. 

LOSS OF RELIABILITY AND IMPORTED WATER SUPPLIES: 

One of the lessons of the last several decades is that for those areas of the state, 

including southern California where we are today, that depend upon imported water 

supplies, those supplies are not a panacea. For Southern California that began when 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power lost much of its supply from the 

Owens Valley through the Mono Lake decision. Following that, imported supplies 

from the Bay-Delta through the State Water Project became less plentiful and less 

reliable. By way of example, two of the last four years have been above normal runoff, while two have been dry or below normal. In that four-year period, the State 

Water Project has never delivered 100% of Southern California’s contract supply 

and it has in one year delivered as little as 39% of the contract supply. 

Another threat to water reliability comes from the prospect of losing drinking 

water supplies due to contaminants like perchlorate. In California, perchlorate has 

been detected in 75 of the 832 (9%) public water systems that have sampled for it. 

Contaminated drinking water wells have been found in eastern Sacramento County 

(up to 260 ppb in raw water) near Aerojet General Corporation’s facility, and in Los 

Angeles County (up to 159 ppb) at an Aerojet facility (Azusa), the WhittakerBermite site (Santa Clarita), and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Pasadena), among 

others. Additionally, perchlorate has been detected in monitoring wells in Lincoln, 

Tracy, San Jose, and Hollister, as well as at Edwards Air Force Base and El Toro 

Marine Corps Air Station in Southern California. The Las Vegas Wash, which is a 

large source of perchlorate contamination, empties into Lake Mead. This has caused 

low but significant levels of perchlorate contamination (5-9 ppb) in the Colorado 

River, which has in turn found its way into southern California aquifers through 

a variety of routes. 

Finally, the Colorado River supply that California has been using has now been 

reduced back to California’s entitlement of 4.4 million acre feet annually. While intense negotiations and efforts have been underway to allocate that reduced supply, 

no agreement has been reached and the threat of continued conflict and resulting 

economic hardship remains. Furthermore, the entire state has a stake in seeing the 

Colorado River issues settled because the state’s water system and economy are inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
245

extricably bound together. What affects one region of the state, particularly a region 

as important as Southern California, has ripple affects throughout the state. 

LESSONS LEARNED: 

While differences of opinion remain about how to best proceed on some of these 

difficult issues, one conclusion has been reached by political leaders across the political spectrum and water managers throughout the state. That is, the current 

unreliability and uncertainty on the Colorado River and in the Bay-Delta are unacceptable. An economy and an environment as important as California’s cannot be 

held hostage to indecision and inaction. 

The Subcommittee has asked how California can meet its needs regardless of a 

quick resolution of the quantification settlement agreement. My response is that settlement of the QSA is essential to the long-term stability of California’s water 

supply and the values that rely upon that supply. If the current proposal for a QSA 

is not acceptable then another one needs to be developed and consensus reached. 

For the sake of our environment and our economy, for the sake of our relationship 

with other Colorado River Basin states, for the sake of progress on important water 

issues around the state, a resolution must be found to the allocation of water among 

the Colorado River agencies in California. ACWA applauds the hard work and leadership displayed by all of those that have worked so hard up until now to reach an 

agreement. We acknowledge the difficulty in resolving the many issues surrounding 

the QSA, particularly with the added complication of Salton Sea preservation. Nevertheless, the state cannot afford the luxury of impasse and we urge the parties to 

continue working until some agreement can be reached. 

California’s oscillation between periods of drought and flood make an expansion 

of our current water storage capacity a necessity. And whether through pumping 

groundwater, conjunctive use, surface water or even desalination, the water supply 

has to be impounded in storage to give us a starting point. All of the tools for developing storage are needed if California is to have a reliable water supply, meet the 

needs of our 35 million residents, plus the 15 million more people projected to move 

here before 2020. 

In Orange County and the Inland Empire, groundwater storage and conjunctive 

use programs are moving Southern California closer to possessing its own independent regional water supply. These local agencies are today running their groundwater programs from the point of recharge to removing salt at the bottom of the 

basin. This is extremely significant, since successful groundwater recharge in the Inland Empire and elsewhere could enable that community to use no imported water 

from the Delta for up to three years during a drought. To ‘‘drought proof’’ any community holds obvious promise for water reliability in southern California, and for 

all communities dependent on the Bay-Delta. 

In addition to these programs, new sources of developing water are essential. Significant advances in membrane and other technologies have dramatically reduced 

the costs associated with seawater desalination. Seawater desalination treatment 

cost was approximately $2,000 per acre foot in 1990. In 2003, this cost has drastically decreased, with treatment costs down around $800 per acre foot. On a per 

acre foot basis, the cost of seawater desalination is now within striking distance of 

the cost of water imported to the southern California coastal region from northern 

California and the Colorado River. 

Five seawater desalination plants with a combined capacity of 180 million gallons 

per day of high quality drinking water have been proposed by water agencies in San 

Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties. These and other plants currently in the 

planning stage of development could produce over 200 million gallons of water within ten years. 

A continued Federal leadership role in funding these programs will ensure their 

success and the realization of the potential benefits to the Bay-Delta and the rest 

of the state. 

CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM: 

In addition to Colorado River, California must resolve the conflicts among the 

competing needs in the Bay-Delta system. The conflicts among ecosystem needs 

(principally fisheries), in Delta users and export users must be resolved. The BayDelta system is the state’s most important watershed both economically and environmentally. 

The CALFED Program was established to resolve those conflicts and has developed a plan that will meet that test. Now, that plan must be fully implemented and 

in a balanced manner. However, for the implementation to continue, the Federal 

Government must become a full partner in decision-making and financing implementation. That is why ACWA applauds the leadership of this Subcommittee and 

246

particularly its Chairman, Mr. Calvert, in passing legislation last year out of this 

Subcommittee and the full Resources Committee to authorize CALFED at the 

Federal level. We thank the Chairman for holding a series of field hearings to gather additional information in preparation for introducing new legislation this year 

and we pledge ACWA’s support and assistance in crafting that legislation and securing its passage. We think it is particularly important that the Subcommittee has 

called as witnesses, representatives of the participating Federal agencies to determine what, if any, additional authorities those Federal agencies need in order to become full partners in the CALFED program implementation. 

This is important because if the CALFED program can be fully implemented we 

believe many of the problems in the Bay-Delta can be solved and the opportunities 

for improvements in water supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem restoration are huge in their potential. 

Program implementation will also provide a number of new opportunities for 

progress in innovative, technologically advanced solutions to further utilization of 

local supplies and stretching imported supplies. The prospects for more intensive 

conjunctive use of surface and groundwater in Southern California and elsewhere, 

the opportunities for reclaiming wastewater, desalting sea and brackish water, 

water transfers and water conservation will all be greatly improved through the 

Bay-Delta program. One of the cornerstones of the program has become development of regional plans to maximize water management in every area of the state 

that uses water from the Bay-Delta system. 

SUPPORT CALFED AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION: 

Let me repeat and repledge our support for legislation to authorize CALFED at 

the Federal level. ACWA has worked since the creation of CALFED to authorize the 

program at the state and Federal levels. The state authorization is in hand, Federal 

authorization is needed. We have worked and will continue to work with Chairman 

Calvert and other members of the California delegation to craft and support such 

legislation. As the Chairman and his colleagues begin the work of writing that legislation, ACWA has several points that it wishes to have considered. First, I have attached to this testimony principles adopted by the ACWA Federal Affairs Committee 

and Board of Directors, which guides the association in evaluating any CALFED 

legislation that is developed. We urge the Subcommittee to consider these principles 

as it writes CALFED legislation. Beyond that, we believe the following elements 

should be included in any legislation authorizing CALFED. 

1. The authorities for all involved Federal agencies need to be clear and unambiguous, not only in authorizing Federal participation, but in directing agencies 

to work collaboratively with each other and with the State of California in implementing the CALFED program. 

2. A crosscut budget should be developed and utilized annually to properly account for expenditures for each agency on the various CALFED programs. 

3. Protection of areas-of-origin and Delta water users should be clearly spelled out 

in the legislation as well as protection for private property owners. 

4. Promote a climate conducive to voluntary water transfers and improved conveyance mechanisms for moving water through the Delta. 

5. Regulatory coordination and streamlining for approval of all permits, licenses 

and other requirements for the building and implementation of water projects. 

The CALFED Program and all it hopes to accomplish for California will be at risk 

without Congressional support, with grave consequences for wildlife, agriculture, for 

our cities and for public safety. Six years of planning and the threat of a future defined by protracted water wars demand your 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 

California water. ACWA agrees wholeheartedly with that analogy, and has worked 

hard to bring that message to Congress. The House Resources Committee can begin 

the work to prevent a crisis, or end up responding to it two or three years down 

the road. We believe a balanced CALFED Program is the solution. We urge you to 

work on behalf of assuring its passage, and ACWA is committed to assisting in that 

effort. 

247

Association of California Water Agencies 

Principles for Federal Legislation to Authorize

CALFED Plan Implementation: 

May 2003

Authorization 

1. The legislation must assure that commitments made in the framework agreement are kept. 

2. The legislation must result in ongoing balance among the ecosystem, water 

quality and water supply elements of the program. 

3. The legislation must provide funding for and otherwise assure a functional Environmental Water Account (EWA) that provides ESA protections such that 

there will be no additional involuntary, uncompensated taking of water from 

water users. 

4. The legislation should be consistent with the Federal Record of Decision (ROD). 

5. The authorizations provided by this legislation should not sunset. 

Funding 

1. Any local cost share identified in the legislation must be tied directly to and 

commensurate with benefits received. 

2. Any local contributions must be tied directly to ongoing, adequate state and 

Federal funding. 

3. The legislation should, to the maximum extent possible, assure appropriations 

adequate to meet the milestones identified in the ROD. 

4. There should be provision in the legislation for local cost sharing to be made 

by cash or in-kind contribution. 

Governance 

1. The legislation must provide for regulatory decisions to be peer reviewed by the 

Bay-Delta program science panel. 

2. Implementation of regulatory decisions must be through the Bay-Delta program and must be consistent with the principles presented in the ROD. 

3. The governance structure must include a strong executive or executives who 

have enough authority to assure cooperative, coordinated actions by the participating state and Federal agencies, and to prevent unilateral actions by those 

agencies. 

4. The legislation must make the Bay-Delta program governing body responsible 

for ensuring balanced implementation of the program. 

5. The legislation must make the Bay-Delta governing body responsible for implementation of the integrated science program. 

6. The legislation must not establish an independent ecosystem program governing body. 

7. The legislation should not seek to amend CVPIA but must fully integrate implementation of the CVPIA anadromous fish doubling plan into the Bay-Delta 

program. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentleman. 

Julie Puentes of the Orange County Business Council. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE PUENTES, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS 

COUNCIL 

Ms. PUENTES. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having me here today. And thank you especially for your 

leadership. I’d like to echo what was just said about your leadership and the energy that you and the other Subcommittee members 

are devoting to these very important issues today. 

Well, as you would expect, representing a business organization, 

I’m here to kind of plead the case of business and industry for resolution of California’s water challenges. And I’d like to tell you just 

a little bit about our organization, why water is especially critical 

to the economy such as we have in Orange County. And certainly 

248

some of what I have to say about the Orange County economy applies in other parts of the state as well. 

The Orange County Business Council is the leading business organization in Orange County. We’re a countywide economic development organization dedicated to economic prosperity across the 

county. So we address issues that have an impact on our businesses’ ability to remain viable in Orange County and in California. 

Infrastructure issues are a big part of our public policy agenda. 

Water’s a big part of our infrastructure agenda. 

We are, as I mentioned, concerned primarily with economic prosperity and, obviously, we can’t maintain economic prosperity without clean and plentiful water supplies. Very simply, no water, no 

business. 

What really concerns us now about the business climate in 

California and applies, of course, to Orange County is that businesses are already finding reasons not to locate or stay or expand 

in California. We don’t want to see them have one more reason, 

that is, the lack of available water supplies, for making those decisions. We’re facing a time when nearly one-fifth of California businesses are already choosing to expand out of the state rather than 

within the state. And, again, we don’t want to give them one more 

reason to make that decision. 

Orange County’s diverse economy includes a range of businesses: 

High-tech, biotech, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, tourism, and 

professional services. And we have an economic input of about 135 

billion dollars. The county is one of the highest job growth areas 

in the state and nation, and our job growth is projected at 20 percent over the next 20 years. So you can see we have a stake in 

making sure that we have the infrastructure required to sustain 

that economic growth. 

18.4 percent of Orange County’s jobs are in high-tech industry, 

and that ranks the County sixth in the U.S. In terms of high-tech 

jobs. As you well know, communities compete for high-tech industries because high-tech jobs pay higher than the average wage, and 

the multiplier effects for the local economy easily outpace those of 

other industries. But high-tech industries often rely upon large 

amounts of clean water for their operations. A day without water 

can be economically devastating. Let me talk for just a moment 

about what that really means. 

The immediate impact, of course, is a halt in production for some 

industries. But the ensuing impact is up to 2 weeks to clean and 

reset equipment to standard, eliminate bacteria from lines, sanitize, and retest. And when you have companies that are producing 

at the rate of a million dollars worth of product each day, you can 

see the impact of a day without water upon a high-tech region, 

upon the companies, upon the water lines, upon the employees, and 

upon the region. 

All of this is why in conjunction with ACWA, MWD, and others, 

Orange County businesses are participating in conservation programs and supporting our local water agencies in pursuing innovative solutions such as our Groundwater Replenishment System that 

you may have heard about and desalination. 

Specific to today’s hearing, we’d like to encourage your support 

of the following actions: First, reauthorization of the CalFed proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
249

gram and the Federal appropriation that is necessary for program 

implementation. We do believe that CalFed represents our best 

hope to insure that the Bay-Delta continues to provide a reliable 

clean supply of water for all of California. And Federal investments 

in that project, therefore, must be increased. 

The State did pass Prop 13 in March of 2000 that provided nearly 2 billion dollars, but we’ve not seen any state or Federal money 

other than that appropriated in the last couple years. And only 

with new Federal investment in this priority area can the Delta be 

restored to deliver on its dual purpose of transporting water and 

maintaining a healthy ecosystem. 

As was just mentioned, storage is a very big concern to us. Burgess made you see that the last water bill failed to include any 

meaningful storage provisions. We’re hopeful that legislation underway under review this year may get to that. But we believe that 

it’s very important, and we’d like to see more specifics concerning 

storage as part of the CalFed process. 

Third, Federal guidance in developing a plan for California to 

live within its allotted 4.4 million acre-feet of water, the Colorado 

River, I think we’ve kind of beat that one to death today, so I’ll 

move on. 

Lastly, voluntary water transfers, we support them. We do think 

it’s an important—that they’re an important component of Southern California’s array of tools for enhancing and improving water 

supplies. But we have not had a chance to read the MWD’s most 

recent proposal on the transfer. Traditionally, our organization 

supports user fees in concept, but we do not yet have an official position on that plan. 

In conclusion, I’d like to thank you, Congressman, once again for 

holding this hearing, for fostering an atmosphere of cooperation 

among all of us who are working together to promote clean adequate water supplies for our homes, businesses, and communities. 

We pledge our continuing support in this effort. Your leadership is 

essential as we move forward, and we thank you very much for the 

opportunity to address you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Puentes follows:]

Statement of Julie Puentes, Executive Vice President,

Public Affairs, Orange County Business Council 

Good morning. I’m Julie Puentes, Executive Vice President Public Affairs for the 

Orange County Business Council. 

Thank you, Chairman Calvert, for inviting our organization to address the Subcommittee today. I’d like to express our support for your tireless efforts on 

California water issues, including the all-important CALFED program and Colorado 

River issues. 

The Orange County Business Council is the leading business organization in Orange County. We are a private-sector alliance of companies that represents hundreds of local enterprises from small shops to giant, multi-national companies. The 

Business Council provides the forum for businesses to join together—often in conjunction with government and educational institutions—to invest in the growth and 

prosperity of the fifth largest county in America. 

The Business Council’s interest in water issues is inextricably related to its primary mission: economic prosperity. Our region cannot maintain economic prosperity 

without clean and plentiful water supplies: No water means no business. If there 

is an insufficient or unreliable supply, business will have one more reason not to 

locate or expand here. At a time when nearly one-fifth of California businesses are 

already planning to expand and/or relocate out of the state, we cannot give them 

one more reason. Restoring the state to its proper place in the global economy reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
250

quires that we ensure a clean and reliable supply of water for our homes and businesses. 

Orange County’s diverse economy includes high-tech, biotech pharmaceutical, 

manufacturing, tourism, and professional services with an economic output of about 

$135 billion. The county is one of the highest job growth areas in the state and nation, with job growth projected at 20 percent over the next 20 years. 

18.4 percent of Orange County’s jobs are in high technology, ranking the county 

6th in the U.S. in terms of high tech jobs. Communities compete for high tech industry because high tech positions pay higher salaries than average, and the multiplier 

effects for the local and state economy easily outpace those of other industries. But 

high tech industries often rely upon large amounts of clean water for their operations. A day without water can be economically devastating. The immediate impact 

is a halt in production. The ensuing impact is up to two weeks to clean and reset 

equipment to standard, eliminate bacteria from lines, sanitize, and re-test. At the 

rate of $1 million per day of lost production, you can see the impact of a day without 

water upon a high-tech region. 

That’s why, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Water District and its member 

agencies, Orange County businesses are participating in conservation programs, and 

we are supporting our water agencies in pursuing innovative solutions such as the 

Groundwater Replenishment System and desalination. Specific to today’s hearing, 

the Orange County Business Council is supporting the following actions by Congress 

and the California legislature: 

• Re-authorization of the CALFED program and the Federal appropriation necessary for program implementation. 

CALFED represents our best hope to insure that the California Bay-Delta continues to provide a reliable, clean water supply for all of California. Therefore, 

Federal investments in the Delta must be increased. While the State of California 

passed Proposition 13 in March 2000 providing nearly $2 billion, no new Federal 

money was allocated in the last session of Congress, and state legislation providing 

for governance of CALFED failed in the final days of the 1999-2000 session. Only 

with new Federal investment in this priority area can the Delta be restored to deliver on its dual purpose of transporting water while maintaining a healthy ecosystem. 

• Storage. 

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. 

• Federal guidance in developing a plan to stay within our allotted 4.4 million 

acre-feet a year of Colorado River water. 

We believe local resource programs can help the state cut its dependence on the 

Colorado River and Northern California water. A competitive, businesslike process 

for the allocation of public bond funds is necessary to ensure that the funds are used 

as prudently as possible. 

• Voluntary water transfers. 

Voluntary water transfers comprise an important component of Southern 

California’s array of water supplies but water must not be dependent on public subsidies. The Business Council has not had a chance to read Metropolitan Water District’s most recent proposal on the Colorado River transfer deal but has traditionally 

supported user fees in concept. 

In conclusion, Chairman Calvert, the Orange County Business Council would like 

to thank you for holding this hearing and for fostering an atmosphere of cooperation 

among those of us working to promote clean and adequate water supplies for our 

homes, businesses and communities. Your leadership is essential as we strive to address water supply challenges that as best as possible meet the legitimate needs of 

the people of this state. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

We’re also joined at the panel by Jasper Hempel for the—he’s 

Chairman of the Western Growers, and anything—if you have 

questions regarding the agriculture, he’s here to answer those 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camp follows:]

251

Statement of Edwin Camp, Chairman, Western Growers 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Water and 

Power. 

My name is Edwin Camp. I am President of D.M. Camp and Sons, a diversified 

farming operation in Bakersfield, California. We grow potatoes, table grapes, processing tomatoes and a variety of other crops. Our farming operation cannot survive 

without an adequate, reliable and quality water supply. 

I serve on the Board of Directors of the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District. Our 

district is innovative in so many ways and we have implemented new water conservation, water banking and water transfer programs. We have to continue to use 

new technology as it becomes available to be even more water efficient. 

I also have the privilege of serving as the Chairman of the Board of Western 

Growers, a California and Arizona agricultural trade association that represents 

3500 growers, packers, shippers and processors of fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts. 

Every one of our members is dependent on a reliable water supply. 

Thank you for coming to California and holding these hearings on the most pressing water and water related issues. I also want to thank you for your past and continuing leadership on California and western water issues. You have been tireless 

on behalf of California and its water needs and Western Growers and I sincerely 

appreciate it. 

The CALFED program that you have encouraged and your efforts to reauthorize 

CALFED are exemplary. As I explain later, without the CALFED efforts we would 

be a lot further away from solving current water problems than we are today. 

My goal this morning is to explain to you some of the very critical water issues 

that our members face and to suggest to you how your Committee can assist the 

California and Arizona fresh produce industry in developing a comprehensive water 

solution. 

Annually, Western Growers surveys its members to identify important issues and 

to prioritize legislative and regulatory initiatives our growers and shippers wish to 

see pursued by the association. 

Water has always ranked as the number one issue—until this year when workers 

compensation costs and reform took the top spot. But, I guess you don’t want to 

hear about that although we would love for anyone to find a solution to this very 

vexing and very expensive problem. 

This year, water supply and water quality were ranked number two by our members. Because these issues are so important to our members and because we are a 

geographically diverse organization, we created a Water Task Force to examine each 

water policy or issue that may arise. Our geographical diversity is of great benefit 

to Western Growers, but it can also create tension on water issues because different 

regions of California and Arizona may have water policy differences or disagreements with other parts of each state. 

The Water Task Force is designed, therefore, to provide a forum to drive water 

policy discussion and consensus among our various growing regions. We are also 

unique in that we include water district representatives on our Task Force. This has 

allowed for greater dialogue and a better understanding of water policy because everyone’s views—grower and water district’s alike—are heard and generally incorporated into a Western Growers’ water policy consensus. 

Our task force has identified approximately 30 important to Western Growers 

local, regional, state and Federal water issues. I have narrowed that list down to10 

that are relevant to your Committee hearing today, but for time reasons, I will only 

speak to the first five. 

Western Growers’ top 10 water policy issues include: 

• Additional water storage and supply; 

• Preservation of water and property rights; 

• Comprehensive and workable water transfers between willing buyers and sellers while preserving water rights; 

• Conveyance system enhancement and modification; 

• Reauthorize CALFED; 

• Regional implementation of water policy strategies; 

• Resolve conflict between environmental, urban and agricultural water uses; 

• Conservation techniques and new technical strategies such as desalination; 

• Study and review economic and third party impacts of ag land retirement; 

• Water quality issues such as irrigation return flow waivers. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you have heard these same policy concerns from the 

many other farm groups and water interests that have previously testified before 

your Subcommittee. 

252

However, I believe our concerns about water bear repeating again and again until 

state legislative and/or congressional action is taken to resolve these critically important matters. In fact, Western Growers strongly urges you and your Committee 

to aggressively address these issues in future policy debates and incorporate solutions to these problems in future legislation that you may introduce. 

Additional water storage and supply: Western Growers is sad and surprised that 

some people in California just don’t get it! If you grow California’s population by 

50% and environmental and urban water use greatly expands, we simply must have 

more water! Yet, we have been hamstrung in our efforts to obtain additional water 

supply and storage due to political and environmental opposition. This attitude defies logic, because we cannot continue to provide for expanded environmental and 

urban water use without either expanding storage facilities or by taking water from 

farmers. 

It is very shortsighted, not to say illegal, to just take water from farmers. Why 

does California want to become dependent on food and fiber from other states or 

countries? Why do we want food from other countries that don’t provide the same 

wages and working conditions or have the same stringent environmental regulations 

that California farmers are required to adhere to? This will occur if farmers continue to be forced out of business because they cannot obtain a reliable water 

supply. 

Moreover, farms are very important to the environment. Farms provide beautiful 

and scenic open space and provide habitat to an extremely large number of species, 

endangered and otherwise. To allow farms to be paved over for lack of water will 

only hasten California’s urbanization that we are all trying to avoid. 

In the mid-1990’s, Western Growers and other farm groups backed California initiatives that were largely ecosystem and habitat rehabilitation measures. We agreed 

to support these initiatives on the basis that once the environmental issues were 

dealt with, water storage and additional water supply would follow. We were misled. 

We must complete the storage projects that are on either on the drafting boards 

or underway. Enlargement of Shasta Lake, building the Sites Reservoir, enlarging 

Los Vaqueros and providing for additional groundwater and Delta storage are all 

critical projects that must be completed. 

That is why reauthorization of CALFED is so critical. CALFED has allowed for 

planning and feasibility studies to be conducted on these projects. But, we must get 

beyond planning and feasibility; we must build the projects and that is what has 

been lacking to date. 

Preservation of water and property rights: Water and property rights are fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. There are those who will say 

that the solution to California’s water problem is to just take water from farmers. 

This view is ill founded and illegal. 

Recognizing and encouraging this fundamental right will reap enormous dividends 

in the future, I believe. If farmers and other water rights holders are assured of the 

vestment of those rights, they are far more likely to agree to structured water transfers, water conservation and water use efficiency. 

Western Growers strongly believes that protecting water rights will provide a 

solid foundation for sound water policy and is the fundamental policy position from 

which all water policy follows. 

Comprehensive and workable water transfers between willing buyers and sellers 

while preserving water rights: Water transfers for water banking, inter regional 

water transfers for short term farming needs, water transfers for environmental and 

water quality enhancement and water transfers to assist some ailing farm sectors 

have proven to be enormously beneficial and successful. 

Western Growers strongly believes that additional short-term water transfers 

must be encouraged. We believe some water supply problems can be avoided if additional facilities and new conveyance systems are built, water rights are preserved 

and cooperative government agencies facilitate water sales and transfers between 

willing sellers and willing buyers. 

Conveyance system enhancement and modification: Western Growers doesn’t have 

the answer to this problem, but we know that without enhancing the system, water 

supply and water transfers cannot be maximized. 

The Western Growers Water Task Force encourages continued efforts to increase 

Banks pumping, maximize the Tracy Pumping Plant capacity and other measures 

to better move water through the system. 

Reauthorize CALFED: Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman for your leadership on this critically important matter. Without CALFED, we would not see the 

significant progress that has been made on so many water issues. 

Surface storage planning and feasibility studies, groundwater projects, water 

transfers, Bay-Delta Science Consortium water conservation and water quality 

253

projects have all been CALFED driven and Western Growers greatly appreciates 

these accomplishments. 

Western Growers is committed to strongly supporting CALFED reauthorization. 

Obviously, we are looking forward to your future legislation so we can examine the 

details. 

The Western Growers Water Task Force is concerned about land fallowing as an 

element of CALFED and the third party and local economic impact such a policy 

may have. But, until we see the new CALFED reauthorization language, we will 

reserve our comments. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me again give you my thanks for inviting Western 

Growers to participate in this hearing. We look forward to jointly solving the many 

water issues we have ahead. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. With that, I’ll start some questions for this panel. 

First, Ms. Burgess, obviously I agree with you. Unfortunately for 

the rest of California, or Southern California particularly, and 

which we found in Northern California, the perchlorate issue is everywhere and not just California. So certainly I, I know Grace, 

we’re both very committed toward finding solutions, not just in the 

San Gabriel Valley but throughout the state, and really in 

finding—the easiest water we can find is the water in our own 

backyard. We just have to go clean it up. That’s going to take 

money. And certainly I believe there’s a Federal role to play here. 

And it certainly is leveraging local dollars and state dollars into 

fixing this problem. So you certainly have my support on that. 

And, certainly, from the testimony that Ms. Spivy-Weber, I agree 

with everything you said. Any amount of water that we can additional yield, we can pick up, either from conservation, reclamation, 

conjunctive use, groundwater storage, surface storage, I’m for it all, 

because it’s going to take every bit of it to meet the future demand. 

Mr. Hall, I have a couple of questions. You mentioned the testimony up in Elk Hill. We have a gentleman, by the way, from the 

Bay Institute—I don’t know if you read his testimony—and it was 

more interesting than the Q and A that took place. 

Mr. HALL. My understanding is you guys gave him a hard time. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, it was easy to do. 

I’ll explain. He made the statement—and, as you know, I was in 

Congress originally when we came to an agreement, all of us, Duncan, myself, it was unanimous on both the Democratic and Republican side to come together on the issue of CalFed. And the deal 

was that we’re all going to get well together. What that means is 

that environmental community was going to win. We had some environmental mitigation that had to take place, and we understood 

that, that that had to happen. The urban community would get 

well in this. The agricultural community would get well in this. 

And especially the folks in the Central Valley that had their allocations cut back, as you well know, that we would get there. 

Well, Mr.—our friend made the comment that there was no deal. 

He said there was never a deal, that the fact that now that they 

have the environmental mitigation, the amount of money that we 

front-loaded into the CalFed process, that he led the impression 

that he is going to fight all the water storage that we have in the 

record of decision, including Sites reservoir, the expansion of Shasta, the upper San Joaquin, and Las Vaqueros. 

So I want to give you the opportunity to comment about that. Because, obviously, I have got—ultimately as a salesman, I’ve got to 

254

go back and sell my members on the fact that we’ve got to redo 

CalFed and make sure that at the end of the process that there’s 

water that we can additionally yield from CalFed, that we fix the 

environmental problems that admittedly that have been there, but 

at the end of the day we get water out of this deal. 

So what is your comment about those things? 

Mr. HALL. With all due respect to my good friend Gary Butler, 

he’s just plain wrong on the facts. That clearly wasn’t the deal. It 

was a deal that was well understood by Governor Wilson, when he 

started this process, Governor Davis, when he took it over, and Interior Secretary Babbitt as the Secretary of Interior. And they 

didn’t represent it as anything else. It was also, of course, embraced by the entire California delegation including both of our 

senators. And to suggest otherwise is revisionist, to be polite. 

And I’m not surprised particularly that the environmental 

community—elements of it, I should say, not all, elements of the 

environmental community have fought some aspects of the CalFed 

program from the time the planning began. They have been particularly strongly opposed to additional surface storage. 

Mr. CALVERT. As you well remember, Mr. Hall, they all signed 

off on this agreement. 

Mr. HALL. Having said that, they signed a framework agreement 

in June of 2002 which very clearly—excuse me, June of 2000, 

which very clearly laid out surface storage as part of it. Now, they 

would say, I suppose, that they agreed to study it, not to support 

it. 

Here’s where I am. I’ve been debating them on this point for a 

number of years. I had a full head of hair when we started this 

process. I’ve stopped debating them. The process is underway. 

CalFed is going to study projects and make a recommendation. I’m 

not going to argue with Gary about the merits of those projects and 

whether we should be studying them. I’m working to fund the studies. And then when CalFed makes a recommendation, I’m going to 

work to fund their recommendations. 

Mr. CALVERT. Carrying this on, our friends in the city of San 

Francisco, as you well know, are going under a very ambitious 

project to rebuild hedge edging and the conveyance system in the 

city of San Francisco, which we certainly support them on. And I 

believe that system supports approximately 3 million people in the 

Bay Area. 

They’ve asked to have a streamline of Federal agencies fasttrack, if you may, of dealing with EPA and dealing with the Corps 

of Engineers and other Federal agencies which you mentioned in 

your testimony. 

As a matter of fact, Ms. Pelosi has introduced a bill in the process and has asked for help to streamline it. And I think we ought 

to do that. But at the same time—and I’d like to work with Ms. 

Napolitano on other things and our Committee to possibly do the 

same through the CalFed process. If, in fact, it’s good for San Francisco, it’s certainly good for the CalFed process, that we can have 

this government streamlining and bidding through these agencies 

and getting these permits where we can get these projects underway. 

Do you think that’s a good idea? 

255

Mr. HALL. I do. San Francisco is another member of ours, and 

we support them in their efforts. But I cannot think of any projects 

that have been subject to more scrutiny than those studied by 

CalFed. So I think there aren’t, probably, any better candidates for 

streamlining a regulatory review than those in the CalFed process. 

Mr. CALVERT. And one last comment to Ms. Puentes. Certainly, 

I can’t think of anything really more important to the economy 

than water, really, water and air. If you don’t have those two basic 

elements, you’re dead. And that just doesn’t apply to Orange 

County, obviously. That applies to the entire State of California, 

and certainly to San Diego. Orange County is blessed with groundwater and blessed with getting a significant amount of its water 

supply without having to import water, unlike San Diego, which is 

totally, almost totally dependable on imported water. So it’s even 

more important in this region. 

And, with that, I recognize Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Steve, does CalFed mean to address the beneficiary pays principal, or how would you think that we could insert or resolve it 

through CalFed? 

Mr. HALL. Did you say the beneficiary pays principal? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, I think it does need to, and it has essentially said 

that it will when it issued its record of decision. But in order to 

identify who should pay, you have to identify who the real beneficiaries are, and that is best done project by project. 

So when a project comes to Congress to be authorized, I fully 

expect—because we’re not—through this CalFed legislation, we’re 

not going to authorize Interior projects. Those would have to be authorized separately. And it’s those that I think people are really 

concerned about that the true beneficiaries pay. So when they come 

back to Congress, my full expectation is that CalFed will bring 

with its package a recommendation as to how the costs of the 

project should be allocated, and we support that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. And the new question would be, how 

would the pumping increases at banks impact Southern 

California’s water supply? 

Mr. HALL. The pumping increases? Well, I cannot think of any 

single element of CalFed that would do more as quick—would provide more water more quickly than increasing banks to 8500. Obviously it has to be done while protecting the environment and protecting the water quality. And— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, given that those would be addressed. 

Mr. HALL. Yeah. It’s got more bang for the buck than any other 

element of CalFed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the second would be? 

Mr. HALL. I think in terms of just pure yield, it’s groundwater 

storage. Just coincidentally, they fit together. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the third, going down the list? 

Mr. HALL. I think what we would call the soft path approaches, 

conservation, reclamation, desalting, the combination of those 

things probably do more. Then everybody talks about surface storage in relationship to yield. It’s very much needed, but it’s not a 

yield issue. It’s to help the system operate so that we can protect 

256

the environment and pump at higher levels and fill groundwater 

basins and manage the system more effectively for human uses. It’s 

a system flexibility tool; it’s not for yield, per se. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It costs more and takes longer to set up, I 

think. 

Mr. HALL. Actually, it’s very competitive with most of the other 

sources. It’s more expensive than groundwater banking. But once 

you get past groundwater banking and improve conveyance of the 

Delta, all of the items are in the same ballpark in terms of the cost. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then what Delta water quality protections 

would you support, and what stops the north to south water transfers from happening? 

Mr. HALL. What was the first part of your question? I’m sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What Delta water quality protections would 

ACWA support? 

Mr. HALL. Well, obviously, those that are currently in law and 

those that are necessary to protect the in-Delta water users and 

the environment. And those are fairly well spelled out in the record 

of decision. They’re not precise in terms of a numeric standard, but 

they are pretty accurate in terms of the beneficial uses that they 

have to protect, and we support those. 

In terms of—I’m sorry, I lost the last part of your question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What stops north to south water transfers 

from happening? 

Mr. HALL. The biggest single obstacle is the lack of effective conveyance across the Delta. If we get to 8500, you will see more 

water being able to move north to south. Won’t necessarily see 

greater volumes of water moving north to south, but we will be 

able to do it more efficiently. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In visiting the Bay-Delta area and touring 

some of the areas and flying over the farmland and some of the 

pumping stations, we kind of get to realize that the role that water 

plays in our economy is great, and we need to help sustain that, 

of course. But I’m afraid some of the things that they’re not facing 

right away, they’re beginning to find perchlorate, they’re beginning 

to find they exist in some areas, that they’re going to end up having the same water quality problems and cleanup that we in Southern California face. 

And I’m not sure if any of the—because when I spoke to some 

of the ranchers and some of the water folks, I’m not sure that 

that’s within their focus yet. And I think maybe we need to do a 

better job getting information to them as to what pesticides and insecticides are doing to the aquifers. 

Because we pump a lot of our water from the aquifers, and right 

now we do not have the quality of water we should have. And we 

have wells being closed for the last two decades because of the contaminated aquifers being drawn from and the wells themselves are 

contaminated. 

What would you think of—what’s your answer to trying to work 

together on that? 

Mr. HALL. What I would say is, as you know, we work closely 

with your office and others on the perchlorate issue and other contamination issues, and we very much appreciate your leadership. 

Because we don’t have enough water to go around as it is, we cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
257

tainly can’t afford to foul our nest in the way that we have done 

in the past. So we appreciate Chairman Hunter’s lead of dealing 

with the Department of Defense on perchlorate issues, and your 

work on it as well. 

We want to see a standard set. We want to see those who are 

responsible to clean it up, whoever they are and whatever the contaminant is, so that our public drinking water supplies can be kept 

safe. And that’s whether it’s perchlorate, MGDE, or whatever else. 

With respect to agriculture, it’s interesting you say that because, 

as my good friend Mr. Hempel knows quite well, the State of 

California is dealing very aggressively right now with the issue of 

ag runoff. And ACWA, because we represent both urban and agricultural water districts, we’re right in the middle of that, and I’m 

actually pretty optimistic we’re going to be able to come up with 

a regulatory scheme that meets the needs of the state in terms of 

protecting beneficial uses, but doing so without putting farmers out 

of business. I’m more confident today than I’ve been in some time 

that we can do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, again. 

And thank you to Grace for your very thorough hearing on these 

important issues. 

And let me just ask the members of this panel who have testified, it’s my understanding that you all support the QSA, making 

this agreement? 

Mr. Hempel. We’re neutral on it. Western Growers is neutral because it pits farmer against farmer. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. So Western Growers is neutral? 

Mr. Hempel. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Ms. Puentes? 

Ms. PUENTES. Yes, we are. I mean, I can’t say to the specifics of 

it in terms of the terms of the deal, but conceptually, I guess we 

are. 

Mr. HUNTER. Making an agreement? 

Ms. PUENTES. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. We are supportive of having a QSA. 

Ms. SPIVY-WEBER. Ditto. 

Mr. HUNTER. We’re getting broader and broader on this strong 

commitment here. OK. 

Ms. Spivy-Weber? 

Ms. SPIVY-WEBER. Yes, we—the Mono Lake Committee certainly 

thinks that getting a QSA is going to be extremely important, but 

not enough for Southern California. 

Mr. HUNTER. And, Ms. Burgess? 

Ms. BURGESS. While we don’t have an official position on it, I 

would encourage anything that would help the water supply issues 

that California faces. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I think you and Grace have gone over the very 

important issues with this panel. Once again, I just want to thank 

you and Ms. Napolitano for being down here, for making—taking 

258

a lot of time out of your very busy schedules to be—to have this 

hearing on probably the most critical issue for California today. So 

thank you, and let’s keep working this issue, and let’s see if we 

can’t get the holdout to sign up to this deal. 

That’s a member of your organization, aren’t they, Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. They are. 

Mr. HUNTER. Good. Then maybe you can lean on them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank you. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn’t know if you 

wanted to add another round, because I have a few things. 

Mr. CALVERT. You can go ahead and ask the questions, and I’ll 

finish it up. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Actually, it’s to Ms. Burgess, if 

you have any idea, if you have funding mechanisms within your 

agency that are being used to implement new water supply technologies; i.e., water recycling, desal? I know they’ve come a long 

way. They’ve brought desal further down to a more manageable 

level. It used to be way uneven. 

Is there anything in the pending offer that we may—I hear 

there’s—somebody that’s come up with a new way to be able to 

deal with the perchlorate. 

Ms. BURGESS. Yeah, we were the first to deal with the perchlorate to treat drinking water in our valley. And since that time, 

technology has changed and improved, and we have now—although, it’s all the same on an exchange, there’s two different 

methods now, and we’re now testing both in our valley. And we 

have found that depending on the concentrations of perchlorate 

that you’re dealing with, one method works more cost-effectively 

than the other. And we are running both and being viewed as, you 

know, a template or a pilot area for all of these. And so, yes, the 

competition is out there, and we welcome it. It’s been really terrific. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Great. Well, I don’t know whether my colleagues have heard this, but many of my other colleagues from 

other states always look to California for new and innovative methodology. They want us to go ahead and do the stumbling and pave 

the way, if you will, so that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel. 

I just wish they’d put money behind it. 

Ms. Puentes, you testified that certainly in water supply, it’s one 

of the key issues to a better business climate. Would you kind of 

touch upon what business is doing to help move this along? 

Ms. PUENTES. Well, one of the three initiatives of the Business 

Council is our advocacy program. So one of the things that we’re 

doing is speaking out on behalf of business for programs and strategies that we think will help improve water quality and water 

supply both locally and in Sacramento and here today, of course. 

So advocacy is one thing that we are doing. 

Also, we’re very engaged in research that assesses Orange 

County’s water supply. And then, third, just helping to make our 

members more aware of just how important water is and what’s on 

the table. We’ll be sponsoring a major event in September on that 

topic with the theme Innovative Solutions kind of headlining that 

event. So it’s primarily in the advocacy area and also in helping to 

build consensus. 

259

I guess I would just add that we also work very closely with our 

water agencies locally and with other governmental officials on 

business climate issues, and this would, of course, be one, so fostering partnerships. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

One of the things I certainly want to impress upon not only this 

panel but the other panel is that we need to engage the people we 

serve, and that’s your water constituents, not just the members. 

And the advocacy starts with the children because they carry that 

into the home. So you need to work together to be able to get the 

message of conservation and pollution and other areas that children will call attention to their parents about the misuse of water. 

So, Mr. Chair, I thank you. Thank you to the panel, and thank 

you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

A little housekeeping here, Mr. Doug Sawyer is in the audience 

today, and he’s Chairman of the San Diego Regional Chamber of 

Commerce. And he has a statement that we are going to submit 

for the record. 

Any objection? 

Mr. CALVERT. Closing today’s testimony, I want to thank all the 

witnesses that were here today and the panels before that gave 

their testimony in answering our questions. I think that as 

Maureen Stapleton said earlier, we are at a fork in the road in 

California. We have experienced some difficulties in our state. But 

I can’t think of anything that can become more of a crisis point 

that we can’t fix readily than water. 

We certainly have budget problems. We have transportation 

problems. We have education problems. We have no lack of problems. 

But water is something that we can’t fix overnight. It takes time 

to build infrastructure. It takes time to get approvals. It takes time 

to deliver the water to wherever the people need it. So as we have 

these hearings, we try to educate people to the problem and try to 

educate people that we must come to an agreement, to a consensus. 

A good buddy of mine who’s an attorney told me that consensus is 

highly overrated. But in this business, this is extremely important, 

because without that consensus, we will have a modern tragedy 

here in California that we can’t afford to have. 

So, with that, I thank you, and I want to thank the staff for all 

the hard work they did. I thank Congressman Hunter for allowing 

us to come to his Congressional district. I’d like to thank Ms. 

Napolitano. And everybody have a great Fourth of July. 

[Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

The following items were submitted for the record: 

• Bilson, Steven William, Chairman and CEO, ReWater 

Systems, Inc., Letter submitted for the record 

• Finnegan, Joan C., President, Municipal Water District of 

Orange County, Letter submitted for the record 

• Guardino, Carl, President and CEO, Silicon Valley 

Manufacturing Group, Statement submitted for the record 

• Marciochi, Don, General Manager, Grassland Water District, 

Statement submitted for the record 

260

• Pack, Anthony J., General Manager, Eastern Municipal Water 

District, Statement submitted for the record


88057.045
261


88057.046
262


88057.047
263

Statement of Carl Guardino, President and CEO,

Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the record 

on the importance of clean and reliable water supplies to the Silicon Valley business 

community. As President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, I am 

speaking for the interests of 180 of Silicon Valley’s most respected employers who 

provide nearly 225,000 local jobs. Our organization was founded in 1977 by David 

Packard on the premise that local employers should be actively involved in working 

with government to find innovative solutions to issues like housing, transportation, 

permit streamlining, education and the environment. The Manufacturing Group is 


88057.048
264

proud to have been a long-standing supporter of the Bay-Delta CALFED program, 

whose goal is to provide reliable, high quality water while balancing the needs of 

agricultural, urban and environmental water requirements. 

The importance of clean, reliable and adequate water supplies to the Silicon Valley business community cannot be overstated. The Valley’s high tech and pharmaceutical/biotech industries demand a consistent, high quality supply of water to support their manufacturing, research and development needs. Many of our high tech 

manufacturers have additional treatment processes in place to remove any traces 

of metals, organic materials and salts from incoming water supplies. Variable water 

quality can result in costly plant shut downs as treatment processes are recalibrated. Variations in the quality of water supplies from the state and federal 

projects can have serious financial consequences for companies vulnerable to water 

quality changes. Actual or potential interruptions of our imported water supplies resulting from the San Luis Reservoir low point problem, or failure of the state and 

federal pumping and conveyance facilities, could have devastating financial consequences. Uncertainty of supply discourages investment, increases operating costs, 

and over-reliance on our groundwater aquifer has long-range negative impacts on 

our local water supplies. 

Continued availability of safe and reliable water supplies is also critical to the 

quality of life in our region. Business leaders recognize that water supply and water 

quality are important barometers of their own, and their employees, quality of life. 

Based on my personal knowledge of business leaders’ concerns, I can say that if we 

do not have clean water and a healthy environment, we will not attract employees 

to our region. 

Silicon Valley businesses are doing their part to use water wisely and maximize 

our local resources. Our region is very fortunate to have one of the only sizable remaining drinking water basins in the San Francisco Bay Area. In fact, we are 

unique in the Bay Area in that local water supplies account for about half the water 

used in the County. The Manufacturing Group and its members are actively involved in efforts to protect our local watersheds and groundwater basins from pollution, and to conserve and recycle water. In fact, it is in part through the business 

community’s efforts that Santa Clara County uses less water today than in 1986, 

even though our population has increased by almost 17 percent. Now we are looking 

to the federal government to do its share to help address water supply issues in 

California. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your efforts to authorize and provide funding for the CALFED Program, which is so important to the economy of the Silicon 

Valley. Meeting the region’s and the state’s current and future water needs will require the combined efforts of local communities, the state and federal governments, 

the business community, and other stakeholders. On behalf of the Silicon Valley 

Manufacturing Group, I want to thank you for being willing to take on one of the 

most complex public policy issues facing us today—water—and for giving me an opportunity to speak about the critical importance of this issue to the Silicon Valley 

business community. 

Statement submitted for the record by Don Marciochi, General Manager, 

Grassland Water District, Los Banos, California 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Don Marciochi, General 

Manager of the Grassland Water District. The District appreciates the opportunity 

to submit written testimony on the June 28 and July 1, 2003 Field Hearings on 

California Water Supply and the June 24, 2003 Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2828 

and H.R. 2641. 

The Grassland Water District contains over 60,000 acres of privately-owned wetlands in western Merced County, California. The District lands in combination with 

state and federal refuges and other privately-held wetlands comprise the approximately 180,000 acre Grassland Ecological Area designated by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘USFWS’’). These lands are managed as habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife. The wetlands of western Merced 

County are a critical component of the remaining Central Valley wetlands and constitute the most important waterfowl wintering area on the Pacific Flyway. These 

wetlands are acknowledged by the Merced County General Plan to be highly valuable wildlife and vegetation habitats, and international treaties have recognized the 

habitat as a resource of international significance. The restoration and enhancement 

of this critical Central Valley wildlife area is one of the leading success stories of 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) (‘‘CVPIA’’). The 

protection of the public investment in the restoration of the Grassland Ecological 

265

1 Contract Between the United States and Grassland Water District for Water Supply to 

Lands Within the Grassland Resource Conservation District, Contract No. 01-WC-20-1754, January 19, 2001. 2 CVPIA Section 3406(b)(3). 

Area and the continued viability of this major component of the local economy are 

entirely dependent on development of a stable, long-term water supply as required 

by the CVPIA. 

The District strongly supports the Calfed Bay-Delta Program and its objective to 

develop and implement a plan to improve water management and restore the ecological health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Our comments focus on one area of concern and alternative wording that will ensure consistency between H.R. 2828 and 

the CVPIA. 

I. THE CVPIA 

The CVPIA was enacted in 1992. Since that time, progress toward restoration of 

the Central Valley refuge habitats represents one of the most significant environmental success stories in the State of California. This progress toward restoring the 

health and viability of the refuges is entirely dependent on development of a stable, 

long-term water supply as required by the CVPIA. 

A. LEVEL 2 WATER 

The CVPIA sets forth three mandatory duties with respect to refuge water supplies. First, the Secretary of Interior (‘‘Secretary’’) must deliver specific quantities 

of ‘‘level 2 water’’ to the refuges. According to Section 3406(d)(1), 

Upon enactment of the CVPIA, the quantity and delivery schedule of water 

delivered to each of the specified wetland habitat areas shall be in accordance with level 2 of the Dependable Water Supply Needs table as set forth 

in the Refuge Water Supply Report and two-thirds of the water supply 

needed for full habitat development for those habitat areas specified in the 

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Action Plan (‘‘Action 

Plan’’). 

Level 2 water shall be provided through long-term contractual agreements provided, however, that the Secretary shall be obligated to provide such water whether 

or not such long-term contractual agreements are in effect. The Secretary has determined that the Grassland Water District is an appropriate party to provide such 

water supplies to the privately managed wetlands specified in the CVPIA and has 

entered into a long-term contract with the District for such water supplies. 1

B. LEVEL 4 WATER 

In addition, by 2002, the Secretary must deliver full ‘‘level 4 water’’ to the refuges. 

According to Section 3406(d)(2), by 2002, the quantity and delivery schedules of 

water measured at the boundaries of each wetland habitat area shall be in accordance with level 4 of the ‘‘Dependable Water Supply Needs’’ table, as set forth in the 

Refuge Water Supply Report, and the full water supply needed for full habitat development for those areas specified in the Action Plan. Level 4 water shall be acquired by the Secretary through voluntary measures that include water conservation, conjunctive use, purchase, lease, donations, or similar activities, or a combination of such activities that do not require involuntary reallocations of project yield. 

C. PROGRAM FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LEVEL 4 WATER 

The Secretary is further authorized and directed to develop and implement a program for the acquisition of a water supply to fulfill the Secretary’s obligations to 

deliver level 4 water, as set forth above. 2 The program should identify how the Secretary intends to utilize, in particular, the following options: improvements in or 

modifications to the operations of the project; water banking; conservation; transfers; conjunctive use; and temporary and permanent land fallowing, including purchase, lease, and option of water, water rights, and associated agricultural land. 

D. DIVERSIFICATION OF LEVEL 2 WATER 

In contrast, diversification of level 2 water sources is discretionary under the 

CVPIA. According to Section 3406(d)(1), the Secretary shall ‘‘endeavor’’ to diversify 

sources of level 2 water in order to minimize possible adverse effects on Central Valley Project contractors. 

II. IMPACT OF H.R. 2828 DIVERSIFICATION PROVISION 

California’s progress toward restoring the health and viability of the refuges is 

due almost entirely to the Bureau of Reclamation’s delivery of level 2 water supplies 

each year and to the Bureau’s increasing deliveries of level 4 water supplies. While 

266

3 H.R. 2828 was introduced by Representative Calvert on July 23, 2003. 

4The language is identical to the diversification language in Section 3(c)(3)(M) of S. 1097, the 

Calfed Bay-Delata Authorization Act, introduced by Senator Feinstein on May 21, 2003. 

the quantities of level 4 water supplies have fallen short of the statutorily mandated 

quantities, these water supplies have been the lifeblood in revitalizing the health 

of these critically important wetland habitats. Changes to the current system of 

identifying, allocating and delivering level 4 water threaten to undo the historic 

progress that has been achieved. 

The language contained in Section 201(d)(13) of H.R. 2828 3 undermines the order 

of priority for delivery of refuge water supplies as set forth in the CVPIA. Section 

201(d)(13) provides that up to $30 million may be authorized for fiscal years 2004 

through 2007 to diversify sources of level 2 refuge water supplies and modes of delivery to refuges and to acquire level 4 refuge water supplies. 4

The CVPIA mandated delivery of full level 4 refuge water supplies by 2002. The 

Secretary has not yet fully complied with this mandate. By allowing funds to be expended to diversify level 2 water sources before full delivery of level 4 water has 

been achieved, H.R. 2828 appears to allow the Secretary to use funds interchangeably for diversifying level 2 sources and acquiring level 4 water. This de facto 

reprioritization threatens the water security of the refuges, is inconsistent with the 

CVPIA and is inconsistent with the expressed goals of H.R. 2828 to improve the 

quality and reliability of California’s water supplies and to restore the ecological 

health of the Bay-Delta watershed. 

III. ALTERNATIVE WORDING FOR H.R. 2828

California’s Central Valley refuges welcome the opportunity for new funds to support water acquisition for the refuge system, but strongly urge the Congress to 

make clear that new sources of funds made available under the Calfed authorization 

respect the current law’s priority for delivery of full supplies. For example, 

H.R. 2828 should include a hold harmless with respect to the amount of level 4 

water that is supplied currently to the refuges. Including a hold harmless ensures 

that the $30 million would not divert funds that have been and are being used to 

meet level 4 refuge water requirements. 

A second option is to replicate the priority for delivery of full level 4 water supplies prior to diversification of level 2 water. Section 201(d)(13) of H.R. 2828 could 

be amended to read as follows: 

(13) REFUGE WATER SUPPLIES - Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than 

$30,000,000 may be expended to comply with the Level 2 and Level 4 refuge water supply requirements set forth in section 3406(d)(1)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Such funds shall be expended first to 

acquire the quantities of Level 4 water specified in section 3406(d)(2) of the 

CVPIA and second to acquire 26,000 AF of Level 2 replacement water. Any 

remaining funds may be expended to diversify sources of Level 2 refuge 

water supplies. 

In sum, the absence of a hold harmless or prioritization pursuant to current law 

could be damaging to the refuges and the species that inhabit them. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the Subcommittee. 

Statement of Anthony J. Pack, General Manager,

Eastern Municipal Water District 

The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) provides water supply, wastewater treatment and water recycling services to a population of over 510,000 people 

in a service area covering over 550 square miles of the southwest portion of Riverside County, California. EMWD is located in one of the most rapidly growing areas 

of the State, and along with other local water agencies, faces the challenge of securing reliable, affordable water supplies to meet the growing needs of its customers. 

EMWD is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). EMWD currently purchases 80% of its potable water supply from 

MWD and is therefore, ultimately dependent on continued water deliveries from the 

Sacramento Bay Delta and the Colorado River. EMWD is investing heavily in local 

water supply management and development in an effort to limit its dependence 

upon imported water. Local water supply development efforts include: 

1) Water Recycling—EMWD has constructed over 125 miles of large diameter 

pipeline, 14 pump stations and over two billion gallons of surface reservoir capacity to recycle treated wastewater from its five (5) Regional Water ReclamaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
267

tion Facilities. EMWD currently sells over 26,000 acre-feet per year of recycled 

water, nearly 70% of all treated wastewater. EMWD has also developed conceptual plans to expand its recycled water distribution system and upgrade 

system-operating characteristics as land use changes shift demand from agricultural to municipal uses. 

2) Desalination—EMWD has constructed the first of three (3) planned brackish 

groundwater desalters. These facilities will treat high-salinity groundwater, 

producing potable water, while protecting adjacent high-quality groundwater 

basins and offsetting salinity increases resulting from water recycling. Conceptual plans have also been developed for several regional brine lines for the disposal of high-salinity wastes from municipal and industrial water treatment. 

3) Groundwater Recharge and Conjunctive Use—EMWD has developed plans to 

utilize local groundwater basins to store imported water available during periods of hydrologic surplus (winter, spring) for subsequent recovery during periods of high demand. Additionally, imported water could be stored for emergency use as a means of reducing demands on the Sacramento Bay Delta during periods of drought. Conjunctive use storage of imported water in local basins will be cost-effective, will result in improved reliability, and help reduce 

environmental impacts on the Bay Delta. The facilities needed for the first 

phase of EMWD’s Groundwater Recharge and Conjunctive Use Program are 

currently being designed. 

4) Groundwater Management—EMWD is developing and implementing comprehensive groundwater management plans (GMP’s) in concert with other local 

water agencies and agricultural property owners. These plans are quantifying 

groundwater rights, limiting over-production and developing strategies to solve 

local and regional groundwater problems. These GMP’s will help local agencies 

and farmers to avoid time-consuming and costly adjudication of water rights 

and will provide the technical data and institutional framework needed to protect and optimize the use of local groundwater. 

In addition to on-going work to develop and manage local water resources, EMWD 

is working cooperatively with other water agencies in Southern California to develop 

integrated regional water supply plans. The goal of these regional plans is to provide a cooperative framework for sharing the benefits of local resource development 

and coordinating the use of imported water to ensure the highest level of water supply benefit while minimizing environmental impacts. Examples of significant regional planning efforts include: 

1) MWD’s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP)—The IRP is MWD’s master plan for 

future water supply. The IRP describes the development over time of a blend 

of local and imported water resources sufficient to meet the future water supply needs of MWD’s member agencies. 

2) Southern California Integrated Watershed Program (SCIWP)—Along with the 

other four (4) members of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 

(SAWPA), EMWD has participated in developing the SCIWP. This plan describes the programs and facilities needed for regional integration of surface 

water, regional groundwater, water recycling, groundwater remediation and 

groundwater banking in the Santa Ana Watershed, which covers over 2,650 

square miles and is home to 5.1 million people. The goal of the SCIWP is to 

optimize the use of the area’s local and imported water resources to droughtproof the entire region, allowing SAWPA’s member agencies to reduce or eliminate the use of imported water during periods of extreme drought. 

3) Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study 

(SCCWRRS)—EMWD, along with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and other 

agencies in Southern California, actively participated in developing the 

SCCWRRS. The study evaluated the potential for water recycling in Southern 

California, and identified customers and facilities needed to triple water recycling over the next 20 years. This level of water recycling would significantly 

reduce the region’s dependence upon imported water. 

The successful implementation of EMWD’s local water supply projects as well as 

the regional plans I’ve discussed, ultimately depends upon two critical factors; the 

continued delivery of reliable supplies of imported water, and the ability of Southern 

California water agencies to fund the extensive infrastructure improvements needed 

to optimize the use of available water resources. 

1) Imported Water Supply Reliability—The reliability of Southern California’s imported water supply has historically been dictated by hydrologic variability. 

However, over the last 20 years, political pressures resulting from recognition 

of increasing urban demands and conflicts over environmental water needs 

have resulted in additional uncertainty over the availability of imported water. 

Without reliable estimates of the long-term quantity of imported water availVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:10 Nov 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88057.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
268

able for use in Southern California, local agencies will be unable to develop accurate water supply plans. Action to resolve this problem is needed in two (2) 

areas: 

• CALFED Bay-Delta Program—Southern California needs to know how 

much water will be available from the Sacramento Bay-Delta and the 

State Water Project. This cannot be accomplished until conflicts among 

ecosystem needs, in-Delta users and export users are resolved. The 

CALFED Program provides a framework for resolving these conflicts. Implementation of CALFED will require full partnership with the federal 

agencies central to resolution of the Bay Delta conflicts. It is imperative 

that CALFED be authorized at the federal level and that the involved 

federal agencies receive the authority needed to become full partners in 

the CALFED Program implementation. 

• Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA)—The most divisive issue 

among Southern California water agencies is the question of Southern 

California’s entitlement to imported water from the Colorado River and 

how that entitlement should be divided among competing interests. The 

QSA must be finalized to allow water supply planning and the development of cooperative water transfer agreements to proceed. Appropriate 

federal agencies need to continue working constructively with the State 

of California, southern California water agencies and the other Colorado 

River Basin states to develop the long-term agreements required for successful resolution of the many difficult issues we have faced on the Colorado River. 

2) Infrastructure Funding—Implementation of Southern California’s Water Supply plans will place a significant financial burden on local agencies. In many 

cases, the pace of new water supply development will depend upon the ability 

of local agencies to secure new sources of infrastructure funding. Such funding, 

will in many cases, be difficult to justify, particularly for new sources of supply 

such as desalted groundwater and recycled water where there is typically a 

mismatch between sales revenue and operational/capital amortization costs. 

The State of California has recognized this problem and has recently passed 

several bond issues to provide grants and loans as a means of encouraging 

agencies to implement new water supply projects. 

It is important to Southern California that the federal government continues to 

support and expand existing programs to provide funding for water resource management and development. Continued federal reauthorization for the Water Resources Development Act, the Small Reclamation Water Resources Projects Act and 

Title 16 Water Conservation Programs will provide Southern California agencies a 

stimulus to invest in new, innovative water supply programs, and accelerate the 

completion of needed water supply projects. 

EMWD also encourages the Department of the Interior to present the SCCWRRS 

to Congress as originally intended. The recycled water projects documented in the 

SCCWRRS represent one of the largest single sources of new water supply available 

for Southern Californians. However, the scope and magnitude of this program will 

require a cooperative partnership between the federal government, the State of California, and local participating agencies. The first step in the process will be congressional review of the SCCWRRS. 

Southern California’s water supply problems are not insurmountable. The ideas 

and technology to solve our problems are available. If the political process can be 

managed and stay focused, we are certain that Southern California water supply 

issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. 

NOTE: The following information was submitted for the record 

by The Honorable Duncan Hunter (CA-52). All of the information 

listed below has been retained in the Committee on Resources’ 

official files and can be viewed upon request. 

Letters from individuals regarding the water consumption at the 

Barona Indian Reservation: 

• List of families experiencing water shortages 

• Letter from John Peterson, County Groundwater Geologist, 

County of San Diego to Mr. Robert Bowling, Regarding 

Groundwater Levels in the Old Barona Road Area 

269

• Letter from Richard Hensle, Chair, Lakeside Community Planning Group to Honorable Dick Murphy, Mayor, City of San 

Diego, Regarding City of San Diego’s negotiations with the 

Barona • Letter from Dianne Jacob, Supervisor, Second District, to 

Frances Gesiakowski, Regarding Groundwater levels in the 

neighborhood and interest in accessing water from San Vicente 

Reservoir • Memo from Councilmember Donna Frye to Councilmember Jim 

Madaffer, Chair, Natural Resources and Culture Committee, 

Regarding Barona Water Pipeline Project • Letter to Robert Bowling, Old Barona Road Association from 

the County of San Diego, Regarding Old Barona Road • Letter from Lauren M. Wasserman, Director, Department of 

Planning and Land Use to Land Owner, Highway 67 and Wildcat Canyon Road Areas, Regarding Mapping Programs, 

Groundwater Impacted Basins

Æ