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

88-533 PS 2003

H.R. 2828 AND H.R. 2641

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, July 24, 2003

Serial No. 108-48

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 Thursday, July 24, 2003 ............................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

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

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

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

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 41 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California .......... 2

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

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 15

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

of California ................................................................................................... 9

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bague, Irela, Member of the Governing Board, South Florida Water 

Management District, Representing Miami-Dade County, Florida .......... 22

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 ........................................................... 24

Campirano, Eduardo A., Assistant General Manager and COO, 

Brownsville Public Utilities Board, Texas .................................................. 26

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 ........................................................... 29

Habiger, General Eugene E., U.S.A.F., (Retired), President and CEO, 

San Antonio Water System, San Antonio, Texas ....................................... 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 ........................................................... 17

Moralez, Gloria, Businesswoman/Farmer ....................................................... 42

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641 ................................. 43

Neufeld, Robert, President, Cucamonga County Water District, 

California ....................................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 ........................................................... 32

Osann, Edward, Consultant, Natural Resources Defense Council ............... 50

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641 ................................. 53

Somach, Stuart, Attorney, Somach, Simmons & Dunn ................................. 60

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641 ................................. 61

Walthall, Brent, Kern County Water Agency ................................................ 45

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641 ................................. 47

Zlotnick, Greg, Director, Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of 

Directors ........................................................................................................ 66

Prepared statement on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641 ................................. 68

Additional materials supplied: 

Capello, Mary G., J.D., Chief Executive Officer, Texas Migrant Council, 

Inc., Letter submitted for the record ........................................................... 10

Furman, Hal, Executive Director, U.S. Desalination Coalition, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 11

Miller, G. Wade, Executive Director, WateReuse Association, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 12

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

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 85

Movahed, Ben, President, American Membrane Technology Association, 

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................... 88

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R.2828, THE 

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT; AND 

H.R. 2641, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY 

OF THE INTERIOR TO IMPLEMENT THE 

CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM 

Thursday, July 24, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Calvert, Napolitano, Radanovich, 

Miller, Dooley, Cardoza, Rodriguez, Baca, and Nunes. 

Also Present: Representatives Pombo and Tauscher. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. The hearing by the Subcommittee on Water and 

Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to 

hear testimony on H.R. 2828, the Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act, and H.R. 2641, the CALFED BayDelta Authorization Act. 

We are certainly privileged and honored to be joined here today 

by the Senior Senator from the State of California, Mrs. Dianne 

Feinstein. And let me say, from a personal point of view, I can’t 

think of anyone who has put more time and effort into the problems that we have in California when it comes to water. And as 

the Senator well, knows this is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is a problem that we all share south, north, Central 

Valley—all over the State of California. And certainly you have put 

much time and effort into trying to solve these issues, and I look 

forward to working with you as we, hopefully, can resolve the issue 

of CALFED and other water issues in the State of California this 

year. 

With that, I know that you need to get back to the Senate, so 

I am happy to recognize you for any statement you may have. 

Thank you, Senator. 

2

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power, on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641

Today’s hearing is another step in the pursuit of finding balanced ways to improve 

our nation’s water supplies and reliability. We are privileged to have the full Committee Chairman and Senator Feinstein here with us today. 

Over the course of this year, we have focused on water delivery enhancements as 

well as the development of alternative water sources through water recycling and 

desalination technologies. Earlier this summer, the Subcommittee held three wellattended hearings in California on different ways to enhance water supplies along 

with an oversight hearing on the CALFED crosscut budget. 

While we have learned much from these hearings, we have also reconfirmed the 

obvious: The math simply doesn’t add up on how our current and future water demands will be met given dwindling supplies. 

H.R. 2828 is the first comprehensive step in helping us answer our water problems. It is a product of our comprehensive work to date. I have taken the valuable 

input presented by my Subcommittee colleagues, witnesses and stakeholders during 

and after our hearings to craft the ‘‘Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental 

Improvement Act.’’

This comprehensive bill is an important step in moving the ball forward. I’m 

proud to have many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues as original cosponsors of the bill and hope to have more support before we proceed to markup in September. 

H.R. 2828 is centered around the development of new technologies and programs 

to bring about needed improvements in how we manage our water resources. 

The bill sets up a coordinated, national performance-based competitive financing 

program to encourage the use of ongoing brackish and seawater desalination and 

water recycling programs. This Subcommittee has heard repeatedly of the value of 

these programs and it’s a given that we build upon this success for all states. This 

title is important to areas, like New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona, which have very 

limited traditional water supplies. 

Based upon the purpose and structure of Sen. Feinstein’s and our colleague 

George Miller’s legislation, our bill contains a title which: 

• Reauthorizes federal participation for four years in the CALFED program; 

• Attempts to bring more storage and conveyance to the CALFED picture; 

• Proposes a ‘‘right to know’’ provision on how ecosystem restoration funding is 

being spent; 

• Allows for more conveyance only if Delta water users and wildlife are not negatively impacted and; 

• Recognizes how existing authorities are being used for CALFED-related 

projects. 

I applaud Senator Feinstein’s and Mr. Miller’s courageous steps in introducing 

their CALFED bills. Our legislation is very similar, some of our policies are different, but I’m confident we can work out these differences between ourselves and 

with others. 

Our legislation also recognizes a federal funding role for the Salton Sea, the importance of better coordination of federal permitting activities throughout the west 

and the development of a rural water supply program. 

H.R. 2828 is not perfect, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

With the valuable hearings and the introduction of this and other bills, we are well 

beyond the starting line. While this is the first step in the legislative process, we 

are certainly closer to finishing this marathon. 

I stand ready to work with Chairman Pombo, Senator Feinstein, Ms. Napolitano, 

Mr. Miller, and other colleagues and stakeholders in the coming weeks before we 

head to a markup. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Nunes and Mr. Miller from our State, I 

want to, first of all, say to the three of you as California representatives on this Committee, that I really think we need to sit down 

3

and see where we go from here. I am somewhat concerned because 

our bills are on different wavelengths, as I understand them, and 

I am concerned that we get a bill. 

Senator Boxer has indicated to me that I am speaking for her as 

well this afternoon, and I am very proud to do that. 

I feel that the basic principles of a CALFED bill are two. First, 

it must be a balanced bill. I think we all know that California has 

different water needs and different water interests. So we need ecological restoration for environment, we need recycling and desalination, we need water quality and conveyance for our cities, we need 

storage, both groundwater and surface, for our farms and for others. So a CALFED bill that is going to pass, in my view, must 

even-handedly provide for all of these interests so Californians can 

rally around it. 

The bill I have introduced explicitly requires balanced implementation. In my house, some Republican senators in the last session 

were afraid that environmental projects, not needing authorization, 

would sail smoothly ahead, while storage projects, lacking congressional approval, would languish. To meet this concern, the Senate 

bill includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Interior to annually certify that the CALFED program is progressing in a balanced 

manner among all of its components. If it is found to be out of balance, the Secretary must revise the schedule. 

Secondly, my bill respects the fact that CALFED has a history, 

and respects past agreements that Californians have made. I think 

it is worth remembering that the drought of 1990 and 1991, when 

Californians were fighting desperately over water, we all thought 

there had to be a better way than court cases and fights. Secretary 

Babbitt came out to California, the Bay-Delta accords were negotiated in 1994, essentially a time-out on fighting was called while 

all parties tried to work together to develop a bill. At one time, as 

I recall, there were 17 different working groups as part of 

CALFED. And out of this Bay-Delta accord was negotiated the 

Record of Decision, culminating into 2000. 

Now the Record of Decision is CALFED’s roadmap. The Record 

of Decision set forth commitments to attend to the water interests 

of all Californians—urbans, farmers, environmentalists. So the 

commitments in the Record of Decision really should and must be 

the framework that holds us together through the inevitable water 

conflict. 

Now, I know that not everyone celebrates every detail in the 

ROD. So what my bill does is adopt the Record of Decision as the 

framework for CALFED program components. This is compromise 

language. It has been negotiated at great length. And we need to 

keep its recognition that the Record of Decision is our roadmap. 

And finally, we need to keep a good handle on the Federal funding of the many different agencies involved in CALFED. To do this 

and, really, to meet the concern, again, of some of the Republicans 

on the Energy and Water Committee in the Senate, they were concerned that California would take all of the Bureau’s allocation. So 

what we came up with was a cross-cut budget, showing the Federal 

funding of each of the different agencies. So the Senate bill sets 

forth a specific list of the projects to be funded and how much each 

would receive. As you know, it is $880 million authorization over 

4

4 years. The Federal cost share is limited to a third. There is $102 

million for planning and feasibility studies for water storage 

projects and an additional $77 million for conveyance. 

Now, I don’t believe we can meet all of our future water needs 

without increased water storage that is environmentally benign, 

that is off-stream, and that provides flexibility in the system for us 

to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem restoration. I have said this from the beginning. I have 

taken some flak for it—I don’t much care. I know from my travels 

up and down the State and my discussions with virtually every 

facet of the water community now over the past 10 years, that it 

can’t be any other way. So we need to be able to, in an environmentally sound way take water from the wet years and be able to 

save that water for the dry years that will inevitably follow. There’s $100 million for ecological restoration. This means improving fish passages, restoring streams, rivers, and habitat, and 

improving water quality. We authorize $153 million for water conservation and recycling, including $84 million for desal and water 

recycling projects, leveraging substantial additional water supplies 

with relatively little Federal investment. 

The bill would also improve water quality for drinking through 

investment and treatment technology, several demonstration 

projects and water quality improvements in the Bay-Delta, the San 

Joaquin Valley, and other parts of the State. 

And then—and we actually took a page from your book, Congressman Calvert, and we included an expanded grants program 

for local and regional communities throughout California, including 

the northern part of the State. So we authorize up to $95 million 

for local California communities to develop plans and projects. We also have levee stability with $70 million, strong supporting science with $50 million, $25 million for program management, et 

cetera. And then there is $75 million for the environmental water 

account, with purchases available for environmental, water, and 

other purposes. 

So kind of in a nutshell, that is it, boiling down. I am concerned 

that we not come to loggerheads between the House bill and the 

Senate bill. I am concerned that we maintain the Record of Decision because this is the only thing around which we have agreement. And the minute we depart from it, we are going to lose people and we are going to have suits. And I think that is just as clear 

as the nose on my face. So I am really concerned that we do that. 

And second, that we move ahead in a balanced manner. If we do 

that, I think we can show to all of the many conflicting interests 

here that we are being fair to all parties. And absent that, I am 

very concerned that we won’t get momentum and the ability to 

move on any particular bill. 

I would also like to thank the Chairman of the full Committee 

for being here, Mr. Pombo from California. And I understand my 

pal Ellen Tauscher is here as well. So I want to thank them for 

their continued interest. 

And I would like to ask one last thing. It is very hard—I have 

found it is very hard to get feedback back. And I have a commitment from Senator Domenici to move our bill now. And as I have 

said to both Mr. Pombo and Mr. Calvert, I would like to, if possible, 

5

see that the Senate bill is as close as we can to a House bill so that 

we can avoid conference problems and get a bill this session. It is 

my belief that if we don’t get a bill this session, we may not get 

a bill. 

It is also good that Congressman Cardoza—I see Congressman 

Dooley. He’s so little behind that dais, I didn’t recognize six-foottwo of you. I am glad you are here as well. 

But please, the only way we are going to do this is to bring the 

parties together. We are not going to do it by moving them apart. 

That concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the 

State of California 

First, I want to thank Representatives Calvert and Napolitano for giving me the 

opportunity to testify on CALFED today. And to all my fellow members of the California delegation, I’ve enjoyed working with you on water issues, and we are going 

to need to work together even more closely over the next year. 

I want to speak plainly to you all—California needs a CALFED bill, and we need 

it now. If we don’t act now, we are not going to have enough water to meet California’s needs in a decade or two. It’s as simple as that. The last time we increased 

our water infrastructure was the 1960’s. Our population then was 16 million, less 

than half of the 36 million we have now. And less than one-third of the 50 million 

we will have soon. 

We need to increase our water supply for our economy as well. California is the 

largest agriculture state in the nation, and we’re the sixth largest economy in the 

world. We need water to run this economy. We all know how difficult it is to pass 

a CALFED bill. I want to share with you my perspectives on why I think that my 

bill, S. 1097, is a bill that we could pass. 

First, it is a balanced bill. California has many different water needs and interest 

groups that advocate for them. We need ecological restoration for our environment; 

we need recycling and desalination, water quality and conveyance for our cities, and 

we need storage, both groundwater and surface, for our farms. A CALFED bill that 

is going to pass must evenhandedly provide for all these interests, so Californians 

can rally around it. 

The bill I have introduced explicitly requires balanced implementation. Some Republican Senators were afraid that environmental projects not needing authorization would sail smoothly ahead, while storage projects lacking Congressional approval would languish. To meet this concern, the bill includes a provision requiring 

the Secretary of the Interior to annually certify that the CALFED program is progressing in a balanced manner among all of its components. If it is found to be out 

of balance, the Secretary must revise the schedule. 

Second, my bill respects that CALFED has a history, and respects the past agreements that Californians have made. It is worth remembering the drought of 1990-

1991, when Californians were fighting desperately over scarce water. We figured 

there had to be a better way. So Secretary Babbitt came out to California, and we 

negotiated the Bay-Delta Accords in 1994. We essentially called a timeout, while we 

tried to figure out a plan to work together. 

Out of the Bay-Delta Accords we negotiated the Record of Decision, culminating 

in 2000. The Record of Decision is CALFED’s road map. The Record of Decision set 

forth commitments to attend to the water interests of all Californians, urbans, farmers, and environmentalists. The commitments in the Record of Decision are the 

framework that holds us together through the inevitable water conflicts. I know that 

not everyone celebrates every detail in the Record of Decision. So my bill adopts the 

Record of Decision as a framework for CALFED’s program components. This is compromise language, negotiated at great length, and we need to keep its recognition 

that the Record of Decision is our roadmap. 

Finally, we need to keep a good handle on the federal funding of the many different agencies involved in CALFED. My bill meets this concern by requiring the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare a cross-cut budget showing the 

federal funding of each of the different agencies. The bill also sets forth a specific 

list of the projects to be funded and how much each one would receive. 

Let me briefly tell you the elements of my bill. It is an $880 million authorization 

over 4 years. The federal cost-share is limited to one-third. There is $102 million 

6

for planning and feasibility studies for water storage projects—and an additional 

$77 million for conveyance. 

I don’t believe we can meet all of our future water needs without increased water 

storage that is environmentally benign, that is off stream and that provides flexibility in the system for us to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem restoration. We absolutely need to take water in wet years and 

store it for the dry years that follow. 

• Next, there is $100 million for ecological restoration. This means improving fish 

passages, restoring streams, rivers and habitats and improving water quality. 

• The bill authorizes $153 million for water conservation and recycling, including 

$84 million for desalination and water recycling projects, leveraging substantial 

additional water supplies for California with relatively little federal investment. 

• The bill would also improve water quality for drinking through investment in 

treatment technology demonstration projects and water quality improvements 

in the San Francisco Bay Delta, the San Joaquin Valley, and other parts of the 

State. 

• The bill also includes a grants program for local and regional communities 

throughout California, including the northern part of the State. The bill authorizes up to $95 million for local California communities to develop plans and 

projects to improve their water situation. 

• The bill also includes $50 million for watershed planning and assistance. 

• The bill also includes other important provisions on levee stability, with $70 

million, ensuring CALFED has strong supporting science, with $50 million, and 

$25 million for program management, oversight, and coordination. 

• Finally, there is $75 million for the environmental water account, which purchases available water for environmental and other purposes. 

I look forward to working with you to all to pass CALFED as quickly as possible. 

We absolutely need this legislation for California’s future. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, that is great timing. But I want thank the 

Senator for your testimony. And certainly we share a common belief, I think all of us, that we want to kick—as George told me one 

time, we want to kick this can down the road. And we have been 

working on this a long, long time, as the Senator well knows, and 

in many aspects we are a lot—you know, we are very close. So 

hopefully we can work these things out as we move this process 

forward. We certainly respect the hard work that you have put into 

this and, hopefully, we can come to some resolution soon on this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. And I would also like to acknowledge Congressman Nunes, whom I don’t know very well. But, you 

know, welcome to a big fight. It has always been that way. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CALVERT. It is always fun. Great. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. No other comments to the Senator? Mr. Pombo? 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I would say to Senator Feinstein we all appreciate a great deal the work that you 

have put into this and, I think more importantly, your openness to 

working with us. Both the Chairman of the Subcommittee and myself have been over to see you a number of times on this over the 

past couple of years. We appreciate your openness to working with 

us. The only way that this is going to move forward is if we work 

together and try to stay on the same page. 

Obviously, Ken and I both want our bill to coincide very closely 

with what moves through the Senate so that we can get through 

conference and, hopefully, get it to the President’s desk as rapidly 

as possible. 

So I just want to thank you for your willingness to work with us 

and with the Committee. Your staff has been great to work with, 

7

and I thank them for all the work that they have put into this as 

well, and hopefully this is something that in the not-too-distant future we can all be happy that we passed it and, as George said, 

we kicked the can down the road. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I really appreciate that, Mr. 

Chairman. It really means a lot coming from you. And I just want 

you to know, I am available. You all have my home numbers in 

California and here and, you know, don’t hesitate to use them. 

Mr. POMBO. I forget what that is. Can you give it to me? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will get it to you. 

Mr. POMBO. But thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are very welcome. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Senator, one last word, and that is thank you 

so much. Appreciate your coming and being open. As you can see 

this is all California up here. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So we are very, very key on it. It is just getting our ducks in a row and being able to accept those things that 

we know we can work together, and work on the others to conclusion that is going to be helpful to all of California, as you have indicated. Thank you, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Baca? 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Feinstein, thank you very much— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Hi, Joe. Good to see you. 

Mr. BACA. —for sharing your thoughts and your ideas. As you 

know, the Inland Empire is where we have the majority of a lot 

of the growth and we look at water and water problems in that 

area, and perchlorate in some of the other areas that—along with 

our Chairman here, Ken Calvert, as well—that impacts our area 

along the Santa Ana River. So we appreciate your leadership and 

your vision in this area and we look forward to solutions to problems in funding, especially as it pertains to water. So thank you 

very much. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I just want to—let me 

say on funding, can’t get any more appropriations without an authorization. We need $15 million this year; could only get 7 so far. 

And my hope had been to be able to get some of the feasibility 

work done that we need to get done to know whether something 

works or not. So it is a real disadvantage not having an authorization bill. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Cardoza. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I just want to echo 

the other statements of the members of this Committee in thanking you, Senator Feinstein, for your hard work over a number of 

years on this issue. And frankly, we wouldn’t have gotten as far as 

we’ve gotten in this process without your leadership and we won’t 

get to conclusion without your leadership. So thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, I don’t know about that. But we have 

just got to do it, and I appreciate those comments. Appreciate even 

more a bill. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much, Senator. 

8

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much— 

Mr. CALVERT. OK, have a great day. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. —Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much. 

We are going to have a series of votes here. As I understand it, 

this may be a couple of hours. We have seven or eight votes, several of which are 15-minute votes, several of which are 5-minute 

votes. So we are going to ask our panel to please forgive us for 

awhile, but we are going to recess until immediately after the last 

vote, and come back. It could be as long as 2 hours. Hopefully less, 

but it could be as long as 2 hours. 

We are recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CALVERT. The hearing is reconvened. First, let me again 

apologize. This is going to be a long day—longer for us than for 

you, but it may not seem that way yet. 

Today we are here for the same purpose. We heard from Senator 

Feinstein and certainly the hard work that she has done, but we 

are all here for the same purpose and that is to pass a comprehensive water supply bill. All of us here today—Chairman Pombo, who 

I think will be back shortly; Senator Feinstein, as you heard from 

earlier; certainly Grace Napolitano, George Miller, Mrs. Tauscher—

all of us. We certainly want to get a bipartisan bill that has the 

same goal. We may have some differences on how to meet that 

goal, but that is what this process is all about. That is why we 

come here to Washington, D.C. and try to work these issues. 

But it is an important step today to listen to all the various collective efforts. One thing we can agree on, I think, all of us agree 

that we need to give more flexibility to the system by adding more 

water to storage, conveying water when needed but protecting 

Delta water quality, providing water recycling and desalinization 

for our Nation; obviously compatibility of ecosystem restoration and 

the protection of private property rights; and certainly how our taxpayer dollars are spent, and we want to make sure that they are 

spent wisely. 

This bill that I am introducing today certainly will provide communities nationwide access to successful water recycling and desalination efforts. It provides a balance to CALFED. I remember 

when we all got in this in 1994, we all said we are all going to get 

better together, and that is what the intent of this legislation is. 

It puts storage on a level field with ecosystem restoration. It 

gives us the right to know how we are protecting our environment 

through land acquisition and ecosystem restoration activities. And 

it certainly protects the private property rights for willing sellers 

of water. 

Judging by the bipartisan cosponsors of our bill, which is growing, I think we have done something right and we are looking forward to the month of August, when we are going to, I am sure, 

hear from many people from many areas of California and throughout the country on this legislation. I am certainly glad we could be 

here for this legislation, and hopefully we can reach consensus on 

how we can bring water to our communities as soon as possible. 

I am going to keep my statement short since we may be called 

back in another hour or so. So hopefully we can also keep the procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:05 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88533.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
9

ess of this legislation short, where we can make sure we can get 

it signed into law in this legislative session. 

With that, I am happy to recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. 

Napolitano, for her statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

convening this hearing today. And a welcome again to all our special guests and our witnesses. But I certainly wanted to take this 

opportunity to again thank you for your dedicated focus on the item 

that to a lot of us is more important than gold, and that is water. 

I think I can speak for the rest of the Subcommittee members on 

my side and commend you for your attention to the serious water 

problems—solving the serious water problems that are facing all of 

us in California and the rest of the western United States. 

And thank you for introducing this much-needed legislation. I totally agree with you on Title I. Some members, some organizations 

and I still have concerns about the bill, and there are many questions that are going to have to be answered. But your willingness 

to listen to the views of many interested parties should reassure 

all of us who are quick to criticize something we don’t understand 

or need more clarification. 

I will continue to review your legislation with an open mind and 

urge my colleagues on the Subcommittee to do the same. I am 

hereby adding myself to your legislation, if I may be so bold, because I believe that that is what we need to move forward with. 

I look forward to a closer working relationship with you, and hopefully some of my colleagues on both sides will not begin to use this 

bill to get back, so to speak, on some areas that we feel we have 

been slighted or wronged on. It is too important to all of us, and 

I think we need to put every little peccadillo, if you will, aside. We 

need to work together. And I am looking forward to that, sir. 

Thank you, and look forward to the discussion. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And I certainly thank the gentlelady 

for her support and look forward to working with her very closely 

as the days, weeks, and hopefully not too many months ahead of 

us go by as we work toward the successful conclusion of this bill. 

I would also ask unanimous consent that Ms. Tauscher be able 

to join us here on the dais. Hearing none, welcome. 

And with that, I would like to recognize the next panel. 

But before we do that, I am going to offer for the record letters 

from the WateReuse Association, the U.S. Desalinization Coalition, 

the Texas Migrant Council, Inc., and a CRS Report, ‘‘Authorities 

Related to Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act.’’ If there is no objection, these statements will be entered 

into the record. 

[The letters referred to follow:]

10


88533.001
11


88533.002
12

[NOTE: The CRS Report entitled ‘‘Authorities Related to Water 

Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act’’ has been 

retained in the Committee’s official files. 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Tauscher, do you have a short statement for 

the record? 

Ms. TAUSCHER. You will be the judge of whether it is short or 

not, Mr. Chairman. I think it is, though. 

Mr. CALVERT. OK. 


88533.003
13

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELLEN TAUSCHER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. TAUSCHER. I appreciate you having me here today. I want to 

thank you, Mr. Calvert, and Ranking Member Napolitano, fellow 

Californians, because I would like to express my appreciation to 

you for recognizing the critical nature of the water supply crisis 

facing California and scheduling this important hearing today. 

I also want to thank Senator Feinstein for her strong leadership 

on this issue and her trademark tenacity in finding a workable 

compromise to move CALFED legislation through the Senate to the 

President’s desk this year. Senator Boxer, who could not be here 

today, also deserves tremendous thanks for her work on water 

issues. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to sit in on this hearing today and to make a few comments about H.R. 2641, the 

CALFED authorization legislation that George Miller and I introduced last month. Our bill, the California Bay-Delta Authorization 

Act, brings the various stakeholders to the table and provides both 

the method and the means for Californians to heal the Bay-Delta 

and resolve our ongoing and future water supply shortages. 

This bill, which is very similar to the Feinstein-Boxer bill in the 

Senate, would provide a framework for addressing the many delicate and varied components of the California Bay-Delta program, 

including water storage, ecosystem restoration, water supply reliability, water quality, conveyance, water use efficiency, water 

transfers, the environmental water account, levee stability, governance, and sound science. In the end, the final solution must fairly 

balance the competing needs of our growing population, agricultural interests, and the environment and adhere to the Record of 

Decision that California stakeholders worked so hard to develop. 

My District includes much of the Bay-Delta, so I am very familiar with its tremendous importance. Simply put, restoring the BayDelta is imperative for improving water quality locally and essential for the long-term supply solutions across the State. The ROD 

also identifies an important potential surface storage project in my 

region, the expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Another regionally important water supply reliability project that would be 

advanced by CALFED is the Freeport project, which is the historic 

agreement reached by East Bay MUD and the Sacramento Region. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, and the members of 

the Committee, we are facing a crisis in California that will make 

our State’s energy fiasco look like a walk in the park if we fail to 

act. As you know, this year’s energy and water bill contains no 

funding for CALFED but specifically states funding may be available if the program is reauthorized this year. We cannot afford to 

wait another year to act. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership with Ranking Member 

Napolitano in holding field hearings and developing legislation to 

begin the process in the House. The time is now for Californians, 

regardless of party or region, to come together to advance comprehensive authorization legislation that will ensure the Federal 

Government is an active partner with our State in solving our complex water challenges. I pledge to work with you, Mr. Chairman, 

14

this Committee, and the California delegation to help craft a balanced bill that can move through the House and to the President’s 

desk this year. 

I think it is vitally important to remember what Senator Feinstein said: If we find ourselves in a situation where these bills do 

not comport themselves closely enough that we find ourselves in a 

conference, we could lose this opportunity. So I hope that our effort 

will not only include finding a balanced approach but that we will 

work to find a way to get these bills to look as much alike as possible so that we don’t lose in the bigger battle. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify. I yield back the balance of my time, and I hope I was short enough. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Tauscher follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ellen O. Tauscher, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member Napolitano, I’d like to express my appreciation to you for recognizing the critical nature of the water supply crisis facing 

California and scheduling this important hearing today. 

I also want to thank Senator Feinstein for her strong leadership on this issue and 

her trademark tenacity in finding a workable compromise to move CALFED legislation through the Senate to the President’s desk this year. 

Senator Boxer, who could not be here today, also deserves tremendous thanks for 

her work on water issues. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to sit in on this hearing today and 

make a few comments about H.R. 2641, the CALFED authorization legislation 

George Miller and I introduced last month. 

Our bill, the California Bay-Delta Authorization Act, brings the various stakeholders to the table and provides both the method and the means for Californians 

to heal the Bay Delta and resolve our ongoing and future water supply shortages. 

This bill, which is very similar to the Feinstein-Boxer bill in the Senate, would 

provide a framework for addressing the many delicate and varied components of the 

California Bay-Delta Program, including:—water storage, ecosystem restoration, 

water supply reliability, water quality, conveyance, water use efficiency, water 

transfers, the Environmental Water account, levee stability, governance, and sound 

science. 

In the end, the final solution must fairly balance the competing needs of our growing population, agricultural interests, the environment and adhere to the Record of 

Decision that California stakeholders worked so hard to develop. 

My district includes much of the Bay Delta, so I am very familiar with its tremendous importance. 

Simply put, restoring the Bay-Delta is imperative for improving water quality locally, and essential for the long-term supply solutions across the state. 

The ROD also identifies an important potential surface storage project in my 

district—the expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. 

Another regionally important water supply reliability project that would be advanced by CALFED is the Freeport project, which is the historic agreement reached 

by East Bay MUD and the Sacramento region. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano and members of the Committee, we 

are facing a crisis in California that will make our state’s energy fiasco look like 

a walk in the park if we fail to act. 

As you know, this year’s Energy and Water bill contains no funding for CALFED, 

but specifically states funding may be available if the program is reauthorized this 

year. We cannot afford to wait another year to act. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership in holding field hearings and developing 

legislation to begin the process in the House. 

The time is now for Californians, regardless of party or region, to come together 

to advance comprehensive authorizing legislation that will ensure the federal government is an active partner with our state in solving our complex water challenges. 

I pledge to work with you, this committee and the California delegation to help 

craft a balanced bill that can move through the House and to the President’s desk 

this year. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I yield back the balance of my time. 

15

Mr. CALVERT. Perfect. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the 

record George Miller’s statement. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano—I want to thank you both for including my legislation, H.R. 2641, in your hearing on Cal–Fed reauthorization. I 

also want to take this opportunity to commend Senator Feinstein for doing the extremely hard work of crafting a Cal-Fed compromise that has a very good chance 

of passing the Senate. 

As many of you know, Congress has failed to re-authorize Cal-Fed legislation for 

the past two sessions. There has never been other time in our state’s history that 

it is more important to come together to ensure we have some control over the future of our water supply and water quality. 

Numerous policies and decisions coming out of the Bush Administration jeopardize not only our water supply but also our water quality. 

The future of the state’s ability to utilize Colorado River water is uncertain. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is the process of renewing Central Valley Project contracts that could dedicate as much as 7 Million AF water for the next 25 - 50 years. 

The Bureau has failed to release two studies that evaluate the feasibility of water 

recycling and desalination projects. One of the study is for Northern California and 

one of the studies covers Southern California. 

In addition, there is continued conflict over the management of the Trinity River. 

Outside of the Department of Interior, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency are looking at policies impacting groundwater contamination problems posed by perchlorate and MTBE. 

Meanwhile, shifting demographics and rapid population growth are putting enormous pressure on our agriculture lands which not only serve as an influential economic sector but also as valuable open space. 

It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and enact Cal-Fed legislation so 

that we can move ahead with determining our own water future. 

I have introduced legislation, based largely on the bill introduced by Senators 

Feinstein and Boxer. They worked very hard in crafting legislation which addressed 

the concerns of their fellow Senators and greatly increased the likelihood that it 

would pass. 

I, along with Rep. Tauscher, have taken the model legislation drafted in the Senate and adopted it to the unique politics we face in the House. 

Specifically, we added some provisions which help assure our House Colleagues 

that water users in California are paying their fair share for water in addition to 

managing that water appropriately. 

I want to stress again that Congress needs to act quickly and pass a Cal-Fed reauthorization bill. It would be foolish to get bogged down in the same intrastate battles that have held up previous legislation. 

We need to move forward and I believe that the compatibility of my legislation 

and that of Senators Feinstein and Boxer make it very easy to quickly pass something through both the House and Senate and put on the President’s desk. 

Thank you again for your efforts. 

Mr. CALVERT. Our first panel with us is General Eugene E. 

Habiger, United States Air Force, Retired, President and CEO of 

the San Antonio Water System, Texas—welcome back; Ms. Irela 

Bague, Member of the Governing Board of the South Florida Water 

Management District, representing Miami-Dade County, Florida; 

Mr. Eduardo A. Campirano, the Assistant Manager and COO of the 

Brownsville Public Utilities Board; and Mr. Robert Neufeld, Member of the Board of Directors, Cucamonga County Water District. 

I now recognize General Eugene Habiger to testify for 5 minutes. 

If you could please try to stay within that because of the timing 

today—and again, I apologize—so we can have some time for 

16

questions, I would appreciate that, General. With that, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE E. HABIGER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM, TEXAS 

Mr. HABIGER. Thank you, sir. It is good to be back. I would like 

to put my written statement into summary form and submit it for 

the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HABIGER. Good afternoon. I am Gene Habiger, president and 

CEO of San Antonio Water System. And I am here today also representing the WateReuse Association. 

Chairman Calvert, members of the Subcommittee, I am honored 

to appear before you again. As you indicated last March, I was here 

to discuss the nature and extent of the challenges that both Texas 

and the Nation are facing to ensure a safe and reliable water 

supply. 

I want to commend this Subcommittee for its willingness to highlight the importance of water-reuse projects. Chairman Calvert, 

you and Ranking Member Napolitano have been staunch supporters of maintaining strong Federal partnerships with communities striving to develop innovative and alternative water supply 

projects. 

The WateReuse Association supports your proposal to establish 

a comprehensive, competitive grants program that would begin to 

address the needs of local communities’ water supply shortages. 

There are a number of areas with the legislation that we would 

like to clarify as to how the program would be implemented. 

Title I of your proposed legislation would establish a nationwide 

competitive grants program to develop alternative water supply 

projects. The authorization of $100 million a year falls far short of 

the demonstrated requirement but, in my view, it is a realistic 

level, given today’s budget environment. 

Title I provides for a complete overhaul of the way in which the 

Federal Government would implement water resources development policy. It would identify the value of a broad-based response 

to meeting water supply shortages and, most significantly, it includes a coordinated approach by requiring the Secretary of 

Interior, acting through a newly established resources coordinator, 

to work with other Federal agencies to identify resources and other 

agencies that could be used to promote the development of such 

water supply projects. 

Mr. Chairman, the WateReuse Association is pleased that your 

legislation seeks to develop a comprehensive approach to meet the 

needs of the entire Nation. Reclaimed or recycled water is an important tool for the Nation’s cities as they work to manage the 

water demands of a growing population. Nowhere is truer than in 

Texas, where over 100 recycled water systems put recycled water 

to beneficial use. 

For San Antonio, we have a mature recycled water program and 

our recycled water is an important part of our integrated approach 

to water resources management that relies on reducing, reusing, 

and recycling our water before developing new freshwater 

resources. Our recycled water is of very high quality, almost to 

17

drinking water standards. Only two cities compare to our water 

quality levels. They are San Jose and San Diego, California. Our 

72-mile pipeline system took almost 6 years and $125 million to design and build, but the benefits are obvious. And most importantly, 

the seed corn for our project was a $200,000 Federal study grant 

received in 1996. 

San Antonio is well recognized for our River Walk. Our city welcomes over eight million visitors a year, generating over $4 billion 

in economic impact. Our recycled water system is designed to 

supply over a billion gallons of water a year into the San Antonio 

River, thus assuring, no matter what the drought conditions, a reliable source of water to sustain that economic impact to our city. 

Our recycled water is used at three military bases, numerous 

local businesses, which include Valero and United States Automobile Association, and we irrigate four of our municipal golf 

courses. San Antonio is committed to doing everything we can to 

conserve and reserve our existing resources. Additionally, a decision to invest in this source of supply is especially important for 

our community as we face limits on our historic water supply due 

to pumping caps in the Edwards Aquifer. 

In summary, the WateReuse Association and its members, including the San Antonio Water System, look forward to supporting 

you and other members of the Subcommittee to develop meaningful 

policy to meet the challenges of delivering safe and reliable water 

supplies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Habiger follows:]

Statement of General Eugene Habiger, U.S.A.F., (Retired), President and 

CEO, San Antonio Water System, San Antonio, Texas, on behalf of the 

WateReuse Association 

Good morning. I am Eugene Habiger, President/CEO of the San Antonio Water 

System (SAWS), and I am here today also representing the Water Reuse Association. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to appear before 

you again. In late March, I appeared before this Subcommittee to discuss the nature 

and extent of the challenges that both Texas and the nation are facing to ensure 

safe and reliable water supply. I also want to note that this Subcommittee is to be 

commended for its willingness to highlight the importance of water reuse projects. 

Mr. Chairman, you and Ranking Member Napolitano, have been staunch supporters 

of making certain that a strong federal partnership is maintained with communities 

that are striving to develop innovative and alternative water supply projects. We appreciate your recent statements in support of increases in the water reuse budget 

at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

The recent action by the House Committee on Appropriations reaffirmed its support of this partnership as part of the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. I am pleased to 

have the opportunity to address you and comment on the Chairman’s legislation to 

create a meaningful response to the national water supply shortage that communities are experiencing. 

Thank you for inviting me to share with you the importance of water desalination 

and water reuse projects not only for San Antonio, but also for many communities 

in Texas and our nation, and the role that the federal government can and must 

play to ensure these projects are successful. 

Title I, H.R. 2828

The WateReuse Association supports your proposal to establish a comprehensive 

competitive grants program that would begin to address the needs of local communities’ water supply shortages. There are a number of areas within the legislation 

that we would like to work with you and the Subcommittee on to clarify some of 

our questions about how the program would be implemented. However, we believe 

18

the key point is that, should this important legislation be enacted into law, the nation will for the first time have a proposed policy that would establish the same priority for reuse and other alternative water supply programs as that which currently 

exists in water pollution control and drinking water quality. If this legislation is enacted, we hope to see similar gains made in the development of alternative water 

supply projects as witnessed in the advances in water quality through implementation of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. These advances are attributable to the strong federal partnership that was established through grants and 

loans to support the development of water and wastewater projects at the local 

level. 

Title I of H.R. 2828 would establish a nationwide competitive grants program to develop alternative water supply projects. The authorization of $100 million per 

year falls far short of the demonstrated need, but it is a realistic level given today’s 

austere budget conditions at the federal level. We are equally supportive of the legislation’s provisions to expand the existing commitment for the Title XVI program, 

thereby providing an important signal to those western communities that are currently confronting some of the most severe water shortages in the history of the 

West. 

Title I provides for a complete overhaul of the way in which the federal government would implement water resources development policy. It would identify the 

value of a broad-based response to meeting water supply shortages. The ability to 

tailor a response to the unique circumstances of an area is central to a successful 

partnership. Some communities will be in a position to rely entirely on water 

reuse—other areas may find that a combination of reuse and desalination, for example, is a more cost-effective response to supply shortages. Title I offers the flexibility 

that is needed in local water resources development planning. 

In the past, the WateReuse Association has urged Congress to consider the fact 

that many federal agencies are involved in the development of water supplies and 

to provide incentives to promote the efficient application of reuse technologies. We 

are pleased to see that Title I would require just such a coordinated approach by 

requiring the Secretary of the Interior, acting through a newly established ‘‘resources coordinator,’’ to work with other federal agencies to identify these resources 

in other agencies that could be used to promote the development of such water 

supply projects. The priority to use limited federal resources in an efficient manner 

is a sound goal. 

However, we are concerned that the goal may be problematic to achieve if only 

because of competing and long established, yet justified, priorities within each of 

these federal agencies. Instead, we would recommend that the Subcommittee revise 

this element of Title I to require each of the federal agencies to report to the Congress on ways in which their programs could be used to complement the alternative 

water supply activities in other federal agencies. If this revision were to be adopted, 

it would serve as an important complement to the bill’s other provision, the creation 

of a multi-agency task force. The ability to combine the task force’s accounting of 

existing resources throughout the federal bureaucracy with ways to coordinate the 

use of these resources would bring tremendous efficiencies to the development of 

water supply projects. 

Mr. Chairman, the WateReuse Association is pleased that your legislation seeks 

to develop a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of the entire nation. 

What is SAWS and Texas Doing? 

SAWS is a municipally owned water utility serving approximately one million 

people in South Central Texas. We provide drinking water, wastewater and recycled 

water service to nearly 300,000 connections including three military bases (Lackland 

AFB, Brooks City Base, Fort Sam Houston), numerous large businesses (USAA, 

Valero, and soon Toyota), four municipal golf courses, six universities and numerous 

other significant institutions. 

Currently, most of San Antonio’s drinking water is pumped from the Edwards Aquifer, a massive underground reservoir. However, due to endangered species issues, 

our ability to rely solely on this unique resource is no longer practicable. The City 

of San Antonio/Bexar County community reached a significant milestone on October 

19, 2000. On this day the San Antonio City Council via Ordinance # 92753 approved 

a multi-year funding mechanism (Water Supply Fee) for the construction and development of additional water resources to meet our projected water demands for the 

next 50 years. 

SAWS uses an integrated approach to achieve this task. As we strive to secure 

our water future, we are as concerned with managing demand, through our nationally recognized water conservation efforts, as we are with developing new supplies. 

Per capita water demand has reduced by approximately 32% over the last 15 

19

years—we’re using less water today than we did 20 years ago even though our population has grown. Desalination and water reuse are important components of our 

50-year plan. 

Texas Senate Bill 1 (1997) created 16 regional water planning groups charged 

with developing water management strategies to meet Texas’ water needs. The recommendations of each region are now part of the 2002 State Water Plan, Water for 

Texas. 

Desalination was a recommended water management strategy in several regions: 

The Far West Texas Region and the Coastal Bend Region, desalination of brackish 

groundwater was used as a strategy to provide approximately 67,000 acre-feet per 

year (AFY) in additional supplies. The desalination of seawater was recommended 

by the South Central Texas Region (San Antonio is a member) to provide up to 

85,000 AFY. Currently in Texas, municipal desalination capacity is 25,750 AFY 

(source: 2002 State Water Plan). 

On April 29, 2002, Texas Governor Rick Perry directed the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to develop a recommendation for a demonstration seawater desalination project as one step toward securing an abundant water supply to meet 

Texas’ future water supply needs. 

The TWDB has identified three sites for demonstration projects: Corpus Christi, 

Free Port, and Brownsville—all major cities along the Texas coast. All three projects 

envision starting at 25 mgd with the possibility of expanding to 100 mgd. SAWS 

is exploring opportunities to partner with Corpus Christi. The TWDB identified the 

possibility of funding for the desalination projects through existing State financial 

assistance programs and through the issuance and use of private activity bonds. 

Currently, two options exist for private activity bond proceeds to be used to finance 

large-scale water projects: 

1) TWDB may apply to the Bond Review Board for a portion of the State Cap 

through the ‘‘State Voted Issues’’ category or, 

2) Political subdivisions of the State may apply to the Bond Review Board 

through the ‘‘All Other Issues’’ category. If TWDB applies for an allocation of 

the State Cap though, a $50 million maximum is imposed. Political subdivision 

applications are further restricted to a maximum of $25 million per project. 

Neither of these amounts would be sufficient to provide the financing necessary 

for a large-scale water project. 

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) also did a survey of possible federal 

assistance: 

• Army Corps of Engineers: The Water Supply Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-500) 

and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) prescribe the Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) authority related to water-supply 

initiatives. These acts authorize the Corps to cooperate with State governments 

and local entities to develop water supplies as part of multiple-purpose projects. 

Desalination plants typically are not considered multiple-purpose projects; 

therefore, the Corps does not usually have the authority to participate in planning or construction of desalination projects. The Corps has included a desalination plant in a reconnaissance study it is conducting with the Nueces River Authority as possible environmental remediation. The Corps is currently participating in a desalination project in El Paso, Texas. The Corps’ involvement in 

the El Paso project is unique, however. Because the desalination plant will help 

meet water-supply needs of Ft. Bliss, the Corps may participate in the project 

as part of its mission to support the military base. 

• Bureau of Reclamation: According to the Bureau’s Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing, & Processing Water Reclamation and Reuse Project Proposals Under 

Title XVI of the Public Law 102-575, As Amended, a demonstration project is 

defined as one that is sized appropriately to demonstrate practicality and that 

also promotes application of innovative technologies, promotes nontraditional 

application of current technology as yet unproven, or establishes the feasibility 

of recycling water to local institutions when an unproven technology is employed. Application of a known technology that merely demonstrates feasibility 

in a different site or geographic region or modification of an already successfully 

applied technology would not qualify as a demonstration project. 

• Environmental Protection Agency: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has provided funding for desalination projects as authorized under the 

National Assistance Program for Water Infrastructure and Watersheds. Under 

the program, EPA may provide technical and financial assistance in the form 

of grants for the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of water-supply 

systems. Typically the allocation of funding under this program is specified in 

the committee report that accompanies EPA’s appropriations. 

20

Brine and Concentrate Removal 

The reject brine and concentrate streams from seawater and brackish groundwater desalination plants have to be removed, disposed of and/or beneficially reused. 

The location of the desalination facility usually limits the brine and concentrate removal and disposal options. 

Typical removal options include any combination of the following: 

1. Returned to Oceans, Bays and/or Estuaries 

2. Deep Well Injection 

3. Disposed of Via Landfills 

4. Beneficial Reuse 

Beneficial reuse of desalination brine and concentrate is rarely an option at the 

current time; however, there is the need to have ongoing public/private research 

projects to include new treatment technologies exploring beneficial reuse options. 

Potential research projects for beneficial uses of the reject stream are as follows: 

1. Road or Soil Stabilization 

2. Dust Control 

3. Softener Regenerate 

4. Salt Blocks for livestock and wildlife 

5. Cotton Root Rot Control 

6. Specific Chemical Recovery (i.e. magnesium for industrial consumption). 

There are several environmental concerns associated with brine removal and disposal, which need further study: 

Disposal of high salt content brine can be pipelined back to the ocean, but must 

be far offshore to assure that bays and estuaries are not affected by rise in salt content. Disposal of low salt content brine to surrounding areas has the potential of 

raising temperatures in bays and estuaries as well as possible increasing salt concentrations over time. 

Disposal of brine sludge and filters byproducts (if filtration methodology is used) 

through land filling is an option, however landfills are generally located at some distance from the desalination plants; therefore, it would be expensive to transport and 

process brine waste. Most landfills will only process solid waste; therefore, the desalination byproducts would have to be dried before processing. 

Disposal of brine byproduct via deep well injection poses potential environmental concerns. Clearly, the federal government could and should be doing more to encourage and 

assist state and local governments to undertake desalination projects. Title I of 

H.R. 2828 is a positive step in this process. 

Water Reuse 

Reclaimed, or recycled, water is an important tool for the nation’s cities as they 

work to manage the water demands of a growing population. Nowhere is this truer 

than in Texas—where over 100 recycled water systems put recycled water to beneficial use. The reasons for such an abundance of reclaimed water applications in 

Texas range from the need to dispose of reclaimed water to meet water quality concerns in receiving streams or from the need to develop ‘‘drought proof’’ supplies for 

business and industry. San Antonio provides a good example of the critical role of 

recycled water for meeting water resource needs. 

In 2002, SAWS completed the first phase of its system to recycle treated wastewater effluent for irrigation and industrial uses. For San Antonio, recycled water 

is an important part of our integrated approach to water resource management that 

relies on reducing, reusing, and recycling our water supplies while developing new 

freshwater resources. 

SAWS currently operates one of the largest water recycling or reuse, programs of 

its kind in the county. Over the past 6 years facilities have been put into place to 

deliver up to 35,000 AFY of recycled water annually to potential customers for nonpotable uses, such as industries, cooling towers, military bases, parks, and river 

maintenance. The program has matured rapidly from concept, design, construction, 

to operation. When added to the 30-40,000 AFY demand for recycled water by the 

city’s electrical utility, City Public Service, the nearly 75 mgd system provides a 

cost-effective alternative to the Edwards aquifer. This system not only protects businesses and military bases from drought, but also benefits endangered species habitat by helping to curb the increasing demand on the Edwards aquifer. 

Our recycled water is of very high quality—almost to drinking water standards. 

Two cities comparable to our water quality levels are San Jose and San Diego. To 

further supplement our water supply, we began using recycled water for cooling 

lakes required for the city’s electrical utility. This system now provides a droughtproof supply for industries, cooling towers, military bases, universities, municipal 

parks, golf courses and river maintenance. 

21

Our 72-mile pipeline system took about 6 years to design & > $125M to build—

but the benefits are obvious. 

San Antonio is well recognized for its ‘‘River Walk’’. Our city welcomes over 8 million visitors a year—generating over $4 billion of economic impact. Our Recycled 

Water System is designed to supply 4,250 acre-feet per year, or over a billion gallons, into the San Antonio River—thus assuring a reliable source of water year 

round. 

Conclusions/Recommendations 

San Antonio has determined that we must do everything we can to conserve and 

reserve our existing resources. Additionally, the decision to invest in this source of 

supply was especially important for our community as we faced limits on our historic water supply due to pumping from the Edwards Aquifer, home to threatened 

and endangered species. 

For this reason, San Antonio may be uniquely positioned for achieving clear federal purposes as it implements its long-range water resource programs including desalination and recycled water. These purposes include, as a minimum, ecosystem 

restoration and protection of endangered species. 

In addition to the funds expended for the recycled water program, SAWS will invest in excess of $2.6 billion dollars over the next 50 years to diversify its water 

supply. This will reduce our reliance on the Edwards Aquifer, provide us with a reliable water supply for San Antonio and help maintain the habitat of federally protected species. 

Other communities, which are not faced with endangered species issues, are looking into desalination and are using recycled water as a way to ensure that key industries and business interests are provided a secure source of water even during 

drought. 

Especially during these times of economic uncertainty, ensuring reliable water is 

critically important to protect our local, state and federal economies; and to protect 

jobs. As new systems are developed and put on line it should be expected that additional regulation would be forthcoming to protect the environment and public 

health. 

Just as local users are helping to achieve federal purposes, the federal government can assist communities further the use of desalination and recycled water by: 

1. Providing grants or cost-share funds for desalination demonstration projects, 

water quality and the treatment needed for use of recycled water in certain applications (e.g. concrete for highway construction, industrial uses such as 

micro-chip or other specialty manufacturing, etc.); 

2. Provide research assistance for studies related to beneficial uses for brine. 

3. Provide assistance and training for design, construction and operation of recycled water systems; 

4. Create incentives for the reuse of water from wastewater treatment plants 

rather than discharging it into streams (supports Clean Water Act goals); 

5. Require the use of recycled water, for non-potable purposes, at federal installations, federal office buildings, for projects funded with federal funds, and by 

contractors when such supply is available; and 

6. Fund such uses from the federal budget rather than shifting those costs to the 

local communities. 

These are just a few ideas of policies and programs that could be developed to 

encourage the development of desalination and recycled water facilities throughout 

the nation. 

Such use of our precious natural resources is an important component of managing the needs of a growing population, protecting the environment and keeping 

our nation’s economy vibrant. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to participate in this process. The WateReuse 

Association and its members—including the San Antonio Water System—look forward to supporting you and other members of the Subcommittee to develop a meaningful policy to meet the challenges of delivering safe and reliable water supplies 

to municipalities, industries, agriculture, and environment. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, I would be pleased to answer any question 

you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your statement, General. Mr. 

Rodriguez would like to say a few things. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker—Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

allowing me to just say a few words. I would just like to take a 

22

moment to recognize General Habiger because of San Antonio—he 

is in charge of the water system, but in addition he has been president/chief executive officer of San Antonio Water System, the general also has over 35 years of experience in national security and 

nuclear operations. So I wanted to mention that. And prior to joining San Antonio Water System, the General was with the U.S. Department of Energy, Director of Security and Emergency Operations, as well as his role overseas of all security functions, including safeguards and security policies and cyber security and critical 

infrastructure protection and foreign visits and assignments and 

emergency operations functions. 

So we are real proud to have him there and he has done some 

tremendous work there. I just wanted to make sure to thank him 

for being here and also for taking the time, and also for taking the 

position, because he is also—one of the beauties of his efforts has 

been to diversify the water use in San Antonio, not only in terms 

of underground water, but also reuse as well as surface water. And 

we have one of the unique projects in the country and I think it 

is one of the largest what we call storage and retrieval, where we 

pump in water and then retrieve it when we need it in the hot 

summers. It is one of the unique projects that is recognized nationally. 

And I know that he is also exploring other possibilities of—you 

know. So I just wanted to make sure that—he is experienced in the 

military, and I want to thank you for that. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I thank Mr. Rodriguez. I think experience in 

war and the military and to go into water issues have probably 

been good training for you. 

Mr. HABIGER. It was. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. With that, we are happy to recognize Ms. Irela 

Bague to testify for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF IRELA BAGUE, MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING 

BOARD OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT 

DISTRICT, REPRESENTING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Ms. BAGUE. Chairman Calvert, members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Irela Bague and I am a member of the Governing 

Board of the South Florida Water Management District from 

Miami-Dade County. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today 

on that portion of your legislation that would authorize a new competitive grant program to fund desalination projects, among other 

things. 

In the interest of the Committee’s valuable time, I would like to 

submit—these are just going to be key points I am going to be addressing, and I would like to submit my written testimony. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. BAGUE. Thank you. The mission of the South Florida Water 

Management District is to manage and protect water resources of 

Central and Southern Florida by balancing and improving water 

quality, flood control, natural systems, and water supply. The district covers all or part of the 16 counties, stretching from the headwaters of the Kissimmee River near Orlando all the way to the 

Florida Keys, and coast to coast from Fort Myers to Fort Pierce. 

Our region encompasses the major population centers of MiamiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:05 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88533.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
23

Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, along with the unique 

Everglades ecosystem. 

Over 6.5 million people live within the district’s boundaries. And 

like other water resource managers throughout the U.S., we are 

struggling to address the long-term challenges posed by drought, 

increasing population, competing demands from business, agriculture, and the environment. These challenges recently led us to 

join together with water agencies from other states, including California and Texas, to form the United States Desalination coalition. 

This group is dedicated to advocating an increased Federal role in 

advancing desalination, both seawater and brackish water, as a 

viable long-term tool for meeting our Nation’s water supply needs. 

Most experts agree large portions of the U.S. will face a water 

supply crisis of potentially immense proportions as the populations 

continue to grow and few new resources of water are available. In 

places like California, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and Georgia, 

urban areas are already struggling to meet increasing demands. 

Water conservation and the emergence of water recycling have 

helped stretch available supplies, but are still insufficient. In addition, in certain regions of the country, the competition for limited 

water resources threaten the implementation of environmental restoration programs, such as the Everglades and the California BayDelta ecosystems. 

It is our belief that the answer in part lies with desalination of 

seawater and brackish surface and ground water. Consider for a 

moment some of the benefits of desalination. It provides a renewable supply of new water, regional security through supply redundancy, drought-proof supply, source of high-quality water, and no 

rights or third-party agreements are necessary. 

I respectfully submit that we stand at the threshold of a new era 

of water supply. Once considered by many to be financially out of 

reach, the new economics of desalination brought on by the tremendous advances in the areas of membrane technology now make it 

possible. Over the past decade alone, we have reduced the cost of 

desalinating one acre-foot, or 326,000 gallons of seawater, from 

$2,000 to under $900. Throughout the U.S., there are a significant 

number of seawater and brackish water desalination projects under 

way in the planning or development stages. The most notable is the 

recently completed Tampa facility in my own State that will eventually produce 28 million gallons of water for the Tampa Bay region. Other projects being considered in Florida include Fort 

Myers, Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Volusia counties. 

Whether or not these projects or others like them in California 

and elsewhere are built in time to address the mounting watersupply crisis is largely dependent on whether the Federal Government can commit to investing in this new infrastructure, as it has 

previously invested in potable water treatment, irrigation, flood 

control and wastewater treatment. 

That is why the legislation that you have introduced, Mr. Chairman, is so important. We applaud your efforts to establish a new 

competitive grant program that would in part help fund desalination projects and facilities. The U.S. Desalination Coalition recognizes that this is truly a work in progress, and we look forward to 

working with you and other Members of Congress to develop a 

24

comprehensive program to accelerate desalination in the United 

States. 

To that end, I would like to add several suggestions that we 

think should be at the center of any new desalination program. 

One, the benefits of desalination are national in scope, and a program designed to provide new Federal investment in these facilities 

must be made available to all 50 States. 

Second, despite the tremendous advances in membrane technology that have reduced costs of desalinating water, energy costs 

still remain high and they are responsible for approximately 30 

percent of the overall cost of desalinated water. The best way to accelerate the development of these projects is to lower the net cost 

to a point where it is equivalent to other supplies. 

We believe that this can be best accomplished by providing energy assistance payments of approximately 62 cents per thousand 

gallons to entities that successfully develop desalination projects. 

We would recommend that these payments be limited to the initial 

10 years of a project’s operation. The U.S. Desalination Coalition 

has recommended a performance-based, competitive system to provide this form of assistance on a pilot basis to a limited number 

of projects, and we hope that you will consider this as you move 

forward. 

And last, because brackish water desalination projects typically 

lack a large urban infrastructure and population base to repay capital construction costs, and concentrate disposal is more complicated and expensive, some form of construction grant assistance 

should be made available to entities developing brackish water desalination facilities. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your leadership in attempting to 

comprehensively address America’s water supply crisis. We and the 

other members of the United States Desalination Coalition look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress to develop the new Federal initiative to spur the development of the 

next generation of water supply projects based on desalination. 

In closing, I would like to leave you with a quote from President 

John F. Kennedy some 41 years ago: ‘‘If we could produce fresh 

water from saltwater at a low cost, that would indeed be a service 

to humanity and would dwarf any other scientific accomplishment.’’ 

Those are strong words coming from a man who launched our Nation’s voyage to the stars, and are words worth pondering as we 

move further into the 21st century. 

Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak before you 

today, and I will be available to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bague follows:]

Statement of Irela Bague, Governing Board Member,

South Florida Water Management District 

Chairman Calvert and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Irela Bague 

and I am a member of the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District from Miami—Dade County. I very much appreciate having the opportunity to testify today on that portion of your legislation that would authorize a new 

competitive grant program to fund desalination projects among other things. 

The mission of the South Florida Water Management District is to manage and 

protect the water resources of central and southern Florida by balancing and improving water quality, flood control, natural systems and water supply. The District 

covers all or part of 16 counties that stretch from the headwaters of the Kissimmee 

25

River near Orlando, all the way to the Florida Keys—and coast to coast from Fort 

Myers to Fort Pierce. Our region encompasses the major population centers of 

Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, along with the unique Everglades 

ecosystem. Over 6.5 million people live within the boundaries of our District. 

Like other water resource managers throughout the United States, we are struggling to address the long term challenges posed by drought, increasing population, 

and competing demands from business, agriculture, and the environment. These 

challenges recently led us to join together with water agencies from other States including California and Texas to form the United States Desalination Coalition, a 

group dedicated to advocating an increased Federal role in advancing desalination, 

both seawater and brackish, as a viable long term tool for meeting our Nation’s 

water supply needs. 

Most experts, including the Department of the Interior, agree that large portions 

of the United States are facing a water supply crisis of potentially immense portions 

as the population continues to grow and few new sources of water are developed. 

In places like California, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and Georgia urban areas are 

struggling to the meet the demands of exploding populations despite the fact that 

water supplies have remained the same or even decreased over the last ten to fifteen years. Water conservation and the emergence of water recycling as a tool for 

meeting non-potable demands have stretched available supplies farther and farther. 

But in many cases the savings resulting from conservation and recycling don’t even 

begin to make up for water supply losses attributable to environmental restoration 

programs that have forced the dedication of huge amounts of available water to environmentally sensitive areas such as the Everglades or the California Bay—Delta 

ecosystem. 

As outlined in the Interior Department’s Water 2025 white paper, policy makers 

increasingly have to deal with water supply crises resulting from failures of past 

policy makers to address competing demands of people and the environment for a 

finite water supply. As a result, there is a growing realization that the country cannot afford these kinds of crises. The social, economic, and environmental consequences of water supply crises are simply too severe. 

It is our belief that the answer, in part, to averting future water supply crises 

and ensuring that clean water is available to families, farms, and businesses lies 

in desalinating seawater and brackish surface and groundwater and making that 

water available for municipal and industrial uses. Consider for a moment some of 

the benefits of seawater desalination: • Renewable Supply of ‘‘New’’ Water Provided • Regional Security Through Supply Redundancy • Drought-Proof Supply • Source of High Quality Water • No Water Rights or Third Party Agreements Needed 

So, given all of the benefits of desalination what, you may ask, is going on in the 

United States today? In some respects I would say that we stand at the threshold 

of a new era of water supply that will be characterized by the development of many 

new seawater and brackish groundwater desalination projects. This is due to a collision of three factors. The water supply crises I outlined, the recognized benefits of 

desalination that I just described, and—perhaps most importantly—the ‘‘new’’ economics of desalination brought on by the tremendous advances in the area of membrane technology over the past decade have reduced the cost of desalinating an acre 

foot of seawater from $2,000 in 1990 to under $900 today. The collision of these 

three factors is resulting in a rush by water utilities to plan for the development 

of desalination projects and facilities all across the United States. 

Throughout the United States there are a significant number of seawater and 

brackish water desalination projects in various stages of planning and development. 

The most notable is the recently completed Tampa facility in my own State that will 

eventually produce 28 million gallons per day of new water for the Tampa Bay region. Other projects being considered in Florida include Fort Myers, Palm Beach, 

Fort Lauderdale, and Volusia County. 

Whether or not these projects and others like them in California and elsewhere 

get built in time to address the mounting water supply crises is largely dependent 

on whether the Federal government makes a commitment to invest in this new infrastructure as it has previously in all manner of other important water related infrastructure including potable water treatment, irrigation, flood control, and wastewater treatment. That is why the legislation that you have introduced, Mr. Chairman, is potentially so important. We applaud your efforts to establish a new, competitive grant program that would in part help fund the development of desalination 

facilities. The U.S. Desalination Coalition recognizes that this legislation is truly a 

work in progress and we look forward to working with you and other Members of 

26

Congress to develop a comprehensive program to accelerate desalination in the 

United States. To that end I would like to enumerate several principles that we 

think should be at the center of any new desalination program. 

First, any program to provide financial assistance to entities developing desalination projects must be national in scope. The benefits of desalination are national in 

scope and any program designed to provide a new Federal investment in these facilities must be available to all 50 states. 

Second, we believe that at the center of any new program to accelerate the development of seawater and brackish water desalination projects there should be a 

mechanism created to provide energy assistance payments to entities developing 

these projects over a finite period of time. Despite the tremendous advances in membrane technology that have reduced the costs of desalinating water, energy costs remain high and are responsible for approximately 30% of the overall cost of 

desalinated water. The best way to accelerate the development of these projects is 

by lowering the net cost of desalinated water to a point where it is equivalent to 

other supplies. We believe that this can best be accomplished by providing energy 

assistance payments of approximately 62 Cents per Thousand Gallons to entities 

that successfully develop desalination projects. We would recommend that these 

payments be limited to the initial ten years of a project’s operation. The U.S. Desalination Coalition has recommended a performance based, competitive system to provide this form of assistance on a pilot basis to a limited number of projects and we 

hope that you will consider this approach going forward. 

Third, because brackish water desalination projects typically lack a large urban 

population base with which to repay capital construction costs and the issue of concentrate disposal is more complicated and expensive, some form of construction 

grant assistance should be available to entities developing brackish water desalination facilities. Likewise, we do not believe that this form of assistance is necessary 

to encourage the development of seawater desalination facilities. The energy assistance payments previously described should be sufficient to encourage the rapid development of these facilities. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your leadership in attempting to comprehensively 

address America’s water supply crisis. We and the other members of the United 

States Desalination Coalition look forward to working with you and other Members 

of Congress to develop a new Federal initiative based upon the foregoing principles 

to address some of these problems and to spur the development of a new generation 

of water supply projects based on desalination. 

In closing I would like to leave you with a quote from President John F. Kennedy 

some 41 years ago: 

‘‘If we could produce fresh water from salt water at a low cost, that would indeed 

be a service to humanity, and would dwarf any other scientific accomplishment.’’

Those are strong words coming from the man who launched our Nation’s voyage 

to the stars and they are words worth pondering as we move further into the 21st 

Century. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentlelady. 

Next, I will recognize Mr. Eduardo Campirano to testify for 5 

minutes, from Brownsville, Texas. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF EDUARDO A. CAMPIRANO, ASSISTANT 

GENERAL MANAGER AND COO, BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC 

UTILITIES BOARD, TEXAS 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My comments have been submitted to the Committee. 

My name is Eduardo Campirano, and I am the assistant general 

manager and chief operating officer for the Brownsville Public Utilities Board in Brownsville, Texas. 

The Brownsville Public Utilities Board is a municipally owned 

utility company providing electric, water, and wastewater services 

to the citizens of Brownsville, Texas, and the surrounding area. 

27

Brownsville is located on the southern tip of Texas along the U.S.-

Mexico border and is currently one of the fastest growing metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. The Brownsville MSA 

experienced a 30 percent population growth from 1990 to 2000 with 

a fairly young population, where the medium age is 29 years of 

age. 

The area has experienced significant growth on both sides of the 

U.S.-Mexico border, and Brownsville in particular is experiencing 

unprecedented growth. This growth poses significant challenges to 

the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. With the increased issuance 

of building permits and the increased demand placed on the utility 

systems, there’s a tremendous demand for infrastructure improvements and additional water supply. 

Brownsville and other communities in the lower Rio Grande 

Valley have been working together with the State of Texas and the 

Mexican State of Tamaulipas to solve our need to ensure our longterm water supply. This is the top environmental and quality of life 

issue for our entire region. The Brownsville Public Utilities Board 

has developed a water supply plan that projects a demand and 

supply of water for the City of Brownsville for the period of 2000 

to 2050. At the current rate, water demand will deplete supply by 

the year 2010. However, we have not been idle in planning for our 

future water needs. The water supply plan incorporates various 

elements, including water conservation, increased surface water capacity, groundwater treatment and development, water reclamation, and desalination. However, employing these strategies is dependent on implementing legislative and funding initiatives. 

Several years ago, the Brownsville Public Utilities Board began 

planning the construction of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir 

Project between the U.S. and Mexico on the Rio Grande River. This 

concrete gated Weir structure will create a riverine impoundment 

of water within the banks of the Rio Grande River located approximately four miles southeast of the City of Brownsville. The project 

can store up to 6,000 acre-feet of water consisting of flood spills 

and releases from the Falcon Reservoir, excess and unused releases 

from the Falcon Reservoir, flood flows below the Falcon Reservoir, 

and Mexican water flow releases with Mexico’s permission. 

The Brownsville Public Utilities Board is in the final stages of 

securing the Federal approval under the Section 404 permit of the 

U.S. Corps of Engineers. The project cost is estimated to be $40 

million, and significant funds have been spent to get the project 

through the State and Federal permitting process. As you well 

know, gaining the support of interest groups and guiding the 

project through permitting can be a very challenging task. While 

it has been frustrating to move the project through the maze of 

Federal and State reviews, we are near our goal. 

I am here today to testify about the importance of the Federal 

and local support to plan, design, and construct wastewater reclamation and desalination facilities. We know from our involvement in various associations and through professional contacts 

with others involved that Federal Title XVI programs and desalination funding have helped Western water utilities make the best use 

of their available water resources. The Brownsville PUB has received some planning assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation 

28

over the past 2 years to plan a wastewater reclamation project. We 

have also asked Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz to introduce some 

legislation to authorize the Brownsville PUB to seek Federal funds 

to match our 75 percent local share. We are currently exploring the 

potential for using reclaimed wastewater for an industrial project, 

and this type of funding partnership is an excellent arrangement 

for both parties. 

In addition to wastewater reclamation, the Brownsville Public 

Utilities Board is very interested in Federal desalination efforts. As 

I stated in my earlier remarks, we believe desalination is another 

viable option for meeting our water supply needs. Brownsville has 

substantial impaired groundwater, and our location provides strategic access to seawater, both of which are essential for our future 

water supply. We have two projects under way that utilize these 

water supply strategies. 

We are in the process of constructing a regional brackish groundwater desalination facility. This project provides for the deployment 

of a water supply source that is independent of the Rio Grande 

River, is not subject to water right purchases. The project does not 

have the prohibitive environmental, capital, or operating costs of a 

seawater desalination facility, while at the same time developing a 

water supply that is drought-tolerant and provides for improved 

water supply. Phase I of the project will produce 7.5 million gallons 

of water per day, with Phase II expected to double production of 

this high-quality water. We believe that Phase II will create the 

greatest opportunity to secure Federal participation in this project. 

In April of this year, the Government of Texas tasked the Texas 

Water Development Board with developing a recommendation for 

a large-scale demonstration seawater desalination project. This initiative resolves to add large-scale seawater desalination to a mix of 

water supply sources to meet the long-term water supply needs of 

various regions of the State, as well as applying technologies that 

can be feasibly implemented in Texas. Brownsville is one of three 

proposed projects. Again, we believe this is a project with great opportunity for Federal participation. 

Before I close I would like to commend this Subcommittee for 

holding the hearing and providing the Brownsville Public Utilities 

Board an opportunity to present testimony on these issues. I did 

not present, nor do I have a strong position regarding, the method 

for Federal funding for reclamation or desalination projects. I know 

that many projects are earmarked in the appropriations process, 

and that process typically favors certain projects. The Brownsville 

PUB believes that it could successfully compete in the competitive 

grant approach. However, the difficulty with the competitive grant 

approach is the amount of funding that is made available to a particular program. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this hearing. I commend you and the Committee members for your efforts 

and would be happy to answer any quest that you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campirano follows:]

29

Statement of Eduardo A. Campirano, Assistant General Manager & COO, 

Brownsville Public Utilities Board, Brownsville, Texas 

Good afternoon Chairman Calvert and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Eduardo A. Campirano and 

I the Assistant General Manager and Chief Operating Officer of the Brownsville 

Public Utilities Board in Brownsville, Texas. 

The Brownsville Public Utilities Board is a municipally owned utility company 

providing electric, water and wastewater services to the citizens of Brownsville, 

Texas and the surrounding area. Brownsville is located on the southern tip of Texas 

along the US/Mexico border, and is currently one of the fastest growing metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) in the United States. The Brownsville MSA experienced 

a 30 % population growth from 1990—2000 with a fairly young population, where 

the median age is 29. The area has experienced significant growth on both sides of 

the US/Mexico border and Brownsville in particular is experiencing unprecedented 

growth. 

This growth poses significant challenges to the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. 

With the increased issuance of building permits and the increased demand placed 

on the utility systems, there is a tremendous demand for infrastructure improvements and additional water supply. Brownsville and other communities in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley have been working together with the State of Texas and 

the Mexican State of Tamaulipas to solve our need to ensure our long-term water 

supply. This is the top environmental and quality of life issue for the entire region. 

The Brownsville Public Utilities Board has developed a water supply plan that 

projects the demand and supply of water for the City of Brownsville for the period 

of 2000—2050. At the current rate, water demand will deplete supply by the year 

2010. However, we have not been idle in planning for our future water needs. The 

water supply plan incorporates various elements including water conservation, increased surface water capacity, groundwater treatment and development, water reclamation and desalination. However, employing these strategies is dependent on implementation of legislative and funding recommendations. 

Several years ago, the Brownsville Public Utilities Board began planning the construction of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project between the U.S. and Mexico on the Rio Grande River. The concrete/gated weir structure will create riverine 

impoundment of water within the banks of the Rio Grande River located approximately four (4) miles southeast of the City of Brownsville. The project can store up 

to 6,000 acre feet of water consisting of flood spills and releases from Falcon Reservoir, excess and unused releases from Falcon Reservoir, flood flows below Falcon 

Reservoir and Mexican water flow with Mexico’s permission. The Brownsville Public 

Utilities Board is in the final stages of securing federal approval under the Section 

404 permit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project cost is estimated to 

be $40 million and significant funds have been spent to date to get the project 

through state and federal permit processes. As you very well know, gaining the support of interest groups and guiding the project through permitting can be a very 

challenging task. It has been very frustrating to move the project through the maze 

of federal and state reviews, but we are near our goal. 

I am here today to testify about the importance of a federal and local partnership 

to plan, design and construct wastewater reclamation and desalination facilities. We 

know from our involvement in various associations and through professional contacts that the federal Title XVI Program and desalination funding have helped western water utilities make the best use of their available water resources. The 

Brownsville Public Utilities Board has received some planning assistance from the 

Bureau of Reclamation over the past two (2) years to plan a wastewater reclamation 

project. We have also asked Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz to introduce some legislation to authorize the Brownsville Public Utilities Board to seek federal funds to 

match our 75% local share. We are currently exploring the potential for using reclaimed wastewater for an industrial prospect and this type of funding partnership 

is an excellent arrangement for both parties. 

In addition to wastewater reclamation, the Brownsville Public Utilities Board is 

very interested in federal desalination efforts. As I stated earlier in my remarks, 

we believe desalination is another viable option for meeting our water supply needs. 

Brownsville has substantial impaired groundwater and our location provides strategic access to seawater, both of which are essential to our future water supply 

strategies. We have two (2) projects underway that utilize these water supply strategies. 

We are in the process of constructing a regional brackish groundwater desalination facility. This project provides for the deployment of a water supply that is a 

source of water independent of the Rio Grande River, and is not subject to water 

30

rights purchases. This project does not have the prohibitive environmental, capital 

and operating costs of a seawater desalination facility while at the same time developing a water supply that is drought tolerant and provides for an improved water 

supply. Phase I of the project will produce 7.5 million gallons of water per day, with 

Phase II expected to double production of high quality water. We believe that Phase 

II will create the greatest opportunity to secure federal participation in this project. 

In April of this year, the Governor of Texas tasked the Texas Water Development 

Board with developing a recommendation for a large-scale demonstration seawater 

desalination project. This initiative resolves to add large-scale seawater desalination 

to the mix of water supply sources to meet the long-term water supply needs of various regions of the state, as well as applying technologies that can be feasibly implemented in Texas. Brownsville is one of three proposed projects. Again, we believe 

this provides a great opportunity for federal participation. 

I understand that there is significant interest in Title XVI, desalination research 

and project construction. I know that over the past ten (10) years, the Federal government has funded wastewater reclamation projects. While it might appear that 

a substantial amount of federal funds have been invested in reclamation projects, 

it pales in comparison to the water supply needs being experienced throughout various regions of the United States. As you are aware from your recent hearings, there 

is a very critical need to develop water supplies in growing areas of the country and 

in regions experiencing severe drought conditions. The Congress and the Administration should expand the funding for programs such as the Title XVI program and 

desalination efforts. 

Before closing, I would like to commend this Subcommittee for holding this hearing and providing the Brownsville Public Utilities Board an opportunity to present 

testimony on these issues. I did not present, nor do I have, a strong position regarding the method for federal funding for reclamation or desalination projects. I know 

that many projects are earmarked in the appropriations process, and that process 

favors certain projects. The Brownsville Public Utilities Board believes that it could 

successfully compete in competitive grant approach. However, the difficulty with a 

competitive grant approach is the amount of funding that is made available to a 

particular program. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear at 

this hearing. I commend you for your efforts and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Recognize Mr. Robert Neufeld from our part of the country, 

Cucamonga County Water District. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT NEUFELD, MEMBER, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, 

CALIFORNIA. 

Mr. NEUFELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee. My name is Robert 

Neufeld. I currently serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Cucamonga County Water District in Rancho 

Cucamonga, California. I respectfully request that my written comments submitted be admitted for the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. NEUFELD. The Cucamonga County Water District is a retail 

water agency located in the western portion of San Bernardino 

County within the Santa Ana River watershed, and provides water 

and wastewater services to more than 150,000 people. Our agency 

imports about 50 percent of its water supply through the Inland 

Empire Utilities Agency and the Metropolitan Water District. But 

40 percent of our water supply comes from local groundwater and 

locally developed water sources, including an additional 10 percent 

that come from local mountain sources. 

Our service area overlies the upper portion of one of the largest 

groundwater basins in Southern California, the Chino Basin. This 

31

is an adjudicated basin under the direction of the Superior Court 

of the State of California and governed by the Chino Basin 

Watermaster Board of Directors. 

I was very fortunate to represent the Cucamonga County Water 

District on the Watermaster Board of Directors as chair for two 

and a half years, and we worked very diligently with members of 

this Committee and with members of the State large group to come 

up with monies to do water recycling and water reuse projects in 

that area. Additionally, I currently serve as a public member of the 

Water Quality Subcommittee for CALFED that addresses water 

quality issues in the context of the Bay-Delta program. 

Today I will be testifying on water quality challenges resulting 

from the existence of perchlorate within our greater region. 

Throughout the Santa Ana watershed, approximately 30 water 

wells are currently shut down or out of production due to contamination from perchlorate or other volatile organic compounds. That 

is out of a total of a little over 300 wells that currently are at risk 

from perchlorate contamination. 

Within the Chino Basin, 39 wells of the 106 in that immediate 

Chino Basin area, according to the Chino Basin Watermaster, have 

detectable levels of perchlorate and more than one in three exceed 

the current State of California action-level standards for perchlorate. 

Estimates for remediation experienced by one of our neighboring water districts are in the range of $1-3 million per well, per wellhead treatment, to clean up the perchlorate. Projected across the 

entire Santa Ana watershed, the cost to maintain existing well production could range from $300 million to almost $1 billion. Such an 

investment would not produce a single drop of new water. It would 

merely return to production that which we have already lost. 

Perchlorate and VOCs are found in underground plumes traveling from various areas within our Basin through—basically as a 

result of various department of Defense activities dating back to 

the beginning of the Second World War. 

Our ratepayers at the local water agencies throughout the region 

are functionally being asked to underwrite the cost of cleanup in 

2003 for actions, activities, and programs conceived in the early 

1940’s. This is wrong. This is unreasonable. This is unacceptable. 

These water quality challenges impose restrictions, limitations, 

and outright reductions of available water to serve the citizens 

throughout our region. Our agency, the Inland Empire Utilities 

Agency, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA, 

which is familiar to many of you), the Metropolitan Water District, 

and many of our neighboring agencies have developed a strategy to 

address the problems and challenges. First, with regard to water 

quality, we have identified and are looking to remediate these 

water quality challenges. Second, with regard to water supplied, we 

are developing plans, programs, and projects to expand our local 

water supplies by reclaiming these lost sources. 

On Friday, July 11, 2003, my agency, the Cucamonga County 

Water District, hosted a regional meeting with our California State 

Senator, Nell Soto, representatives of other local water agencies, 

and J.P. Woodley, the assistant under secretary of defense for the 

environment with the Department of Defense, and other Federal 

32

officials to discuss perchlorate in our region and, most importantly, 

what could be done working together to clean up our contaminated 

waters. As a result of that meeting, a historic memorandum of understanding was executed between myself, two other water agencies, State Senator Nell Soto, and the Department of Defense, resulting in a memorandum of understanding to work together with 

DOD to address the perchlorate problems within the State. 

The agencies which signed the MOU are prepared to provide 

land, access to wells, water, staff time, and other resources to make 

sure that these projects are successful. 

If DOD, EPA, and other Federal and State agencies would work 

with us to clean up the perchlorate, the VOCs, and other impaired 

waters, then investments in water quality would certainly assist 

our efforts to expand our water supplies. 

These are positive developments. For our part, we pledge our cooperation and assistance and full participation. 

I know there are many other things that need to be said, but in 

deference to the time limits I will cut my remarks short. 

There is one thing that I do want to make sure gets included in 

the record today. In April of 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation completed work on a multi-year feasibility study entitled, ‘‘The Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Study.’’ 

It concluded that 34 water recycling projects in Southern California 

could produce an additional 450,000 acre-feet of new water by 

2010. The Inland Empire projects slated as part of that program 

would produce most of that through recycled water. The Department of the Interior has not submitted this report to Congress, as 

required by Section 1606(b) of Public Law 102-575 and notwithstanding repeated requests by the Resources Committee and this 

Subcommittee for that information. Our agency has completed a 

feasibility study and we are working very hard to move forward 

with this. 

Mr. Calvert, we are prepared to support your bill. We are looking 

forward to reviewing your proposal, evaluate it, and report back to 

you after Labor Day. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Napolitano, 

and the Subcommittee for your leadership and the opportunity to 

testify before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neufeld follows:]

Statement of Robert Neufeld, Member, Board of Directors, Cucamonga 

County Water District, Rancho Cucamonga, California, on H.R. 2828

Introduction. 

Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Robert Neufeld. Presently, I serve as Chair, Board of Directors, 

Cucamonga County Water District based in Rancho Cucamonga, California (San 

Bernardino County). 

Cucamonga County Water District is a retail water agency, located in the western 

portion of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana River watershed, and provides water and waste water services to more than 150,000 people. Our agency receives approximately 50% of its water supply from the Inland Empire Utilities 

Agency, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

(MWD). Approximately 40% of our locally developed water supply comes from 

ground water and the remaining 10% comes from local mountain sources. 

Our service area overlays the upper portion of one of the largest groundwater 

basins—the Chino Basin—in Southern California. This is an adjudicated basin 

33

under the direction of the Superior Court, State of California and governed by the 

Chino Basin Watermaster. 

I represented Cucamonga County Water District on the Chino Basin Watermaster 

Board and served as Chair for two and a half years. Additionally, I currently serve 

as a public member of the Water Quality Subcommittee for CALFED that addresses 

water quality issues in the context of the Bay-Delta program. 

Today, the Subcommittee asked to testify on water quality challenges resulting 

from the existence of perchlorate within our greater region. 

Perchlorate, VOCs and other Water Quality Challenges 

Throughout the Santa Ana watershed, approximately 30 water wells are currently 

shut down or out of production due to contamination from perchlorate or other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Today, some 300 wells are at risk because of perchlorate. 

In the Chino Basin, 39 of the 106 wells, according to the Chino Basin 

Watermaster, have detectable levels of perchlorate. More than one in three exceed 

the current State of California ‘‘action levels’’ for perchlorate. 

Estimates for remediation, experienced by one of our neighboring water districts, are $1—$3 million per well. Projected across the Santa Ana watershed, the costs 

to maintain existing well production could range from $300 million to almost $1 billion. Such an investment would not produce a single drop of new water. It would 

merely protect what’s already in production. 

Perchlorate and VOCs (such as those found in an underground plume traveling 

from the Chino Airport) are in our Basin and throughout our region as a result of 

various Defense Department activities dating back to the beginning of the second 

World War. 

The ratepayers of our water agencies, throughout our region, are functionally 

being asked to underwrite the cost of cleanup in 2003 for actions, activities and programs conceived in the early 1940s and thereafter. This is wrong. This is unreasonable. This is unacceptable. 

These water quality challenges impose restrictions limitations and outright reductions of available water to serve the citizens throughout our region. 

Our agency, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Santa Ana Watershed Project 

Authority (SAWAPA), MWD and many of our neighboring districts have developed 

a strategy to address these problems and challenges. First, with regard to water 

quality—identify and remediate water quality challenges. Second, with regard water 

supplied, develop plans, programs and projects to expand our local water supplies. 

Perchlorate and DOD: New Opportunity To Address Chronic Water Quality Issue 

On Friday, July 11, 2003, Cucamonga County Water District hosted a regional 

meeting with our California State Senator, Nell Soto, representatives of other local 

water agencies, and J.P. Woodley, Assistant Under Secretary of Defense, Environment (DOD) and other Federal officials to discuss perchlorate in our region—and 

most importantly, what could be done, working together, to clean up our contaminated waters. As a result, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed. 

We have agreed to work with DOD to find cleanup solutions and, most significantly, DOD has agreed to work with us. Together, we will evaluate new technologies and new ‘‘on-the-ground’’ solutions. This is positive. It is a first step. We 

are optimistic that this process will enable us—over time—to reclaim lost water production, and arrest the spread of perchlorate in the watershed. 

The agencies which signed the MOU are prepared to provide land, access to wells, 

water supplies, staff time and other resources to this new endeavor. 

If DOD, EPA and other Federal and State agencies work with us to cleanup perchlorate, VOCs and other impaired waters, then investments in water quality assist 

our efforts to expand our water supplies. 

These are positive developments. For our part, we pledge our cooperation, assistance and full participation. 

Expanding Our Water Supplies: Drought-Proofing the Region 

The Santa Ana Watershed is one of the fastest urbanizing watershed in the Nation. As a result, demand for water is increasing in our District, Basin and 

Watershed. Severe drought visited us in the past 24 months. Imported supplies to 

California from the Colorado River have been reduced by the Department of the 

Interior. Perchlorate threatens some 300 wells supplying drinking water to millions 

of people. And, the list goes on. 

We do not expect to receive more water from the State Water Project, and may 

well get less than we thought we would. 

We certainly will not get more water from the Colorado River, and may well get 

less. 

34

We can, nevertheless, expand our local water supplies. 

At the heart of our strategy—develop local supplies to ‘‘drought-proof’’ our water 

district, the Chino Basin and Santa Ana Watershed. 

This can be accomplished through water recycling, groundwater storage in the 

Chino Basin and in Orange County and construction and operation of desalination 

plants, conservation and other similar projects. 

How would this be accomplished? 

Some of the initiatives include: 

In April 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation completed work on a multi-year Feasibility Study (Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse 

Study). It concluded that 34 water recycling projects in Southern California could 

produce some 450,000af of new water by 2010. The Inland Empire projects are slated to produce the most new recycled water. The Department of the Interior has not 

submitted this report to Congress as required by Section 1606 (b) of Public Law 102-

575 and notwithstanding repeated requests by the Resources Committee—and this 

Subcommittee. 

Our agency has completed a feasibility study for another new water recycling 

project. We will produce, before the end of the decade, more than 5,000af new recycled supplies. Customers have been identified and support for this initiative is very 

high. 

The Chino Basin Groundwater project, dedicated a few months ago and now 

under construction, will have the capacity to store 500,000af of water. Orange County Water District, also in our watershed, is constructing a similar project to store 

an additional 500,000af. Together, these two projects will store 1 million acre feet 

of water in two groundwater basins. 

Local projects are the backbone of our water quality challenges. Local projects are 

also the means building water supply capacity and drought-proofing our region. 

The Calvert Bill 

The Calvert bill proposes a new office be established at the Department of the 

Interior to develop local water recycling, desalination, conjunctive use, groundwater 

storage and conservation projects throughout the Nation. We support this new initiative because it would commit the Federal government to provide assistance to 

communities who are trying to bring new water supplies online using innovative 

technologies. 

Mr. Chairman, you have asked that we—and all others—review your new proposal, evaluate it and report back to you after Labor Day. We will do that. We believe that this proposal is an excellent start. 

Finally Mr. Chairman, we thank you, Ranking Member Napolitano and all the 

Subcommittee Members for your leadership. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I hope before Labor Day you will be able to 

take a look at that legislation and get that letter in. 

Mr. NEUFELD. Absolutely. 

Mr. CALVERT. We need your support, Mr. Neufeld. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

One thing in your testimony, Mr. Campirano, you mentioned 

what would be very helpful to you would be some way of coordinating or to improve a way to move these projects through the various maze of agencies that you all have to work with in order to 

get approval. This is in the legislation. Do you think that would be 

helpful to you? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Yes, sir, it would be very helpful. 

Mr. CALVERT. Good. And certainly in the coastal States, obviously desalination is a growing curiosity, and I think beyond a curiosity, to many areas that are putting in desalination facilities beyond just pilot programs. And Ms. Bague, in your testimony you 

mentioned that the price of desalinated water has gone down from 

approximately $2,000 an acre-foot now to less than $900 an acrefoot. 

Ms. BAGUE. Yes, sir. 

35

Mr. CALVERT. That is certainly one heck of an improvement. 

What kind of advances do you see in the future as far as desalination and the cost of desalination? 

Ms. BAGUE. Well, as far as my State is concerned and the district 

that I represent, I believe that any desalination projects implemented in my 16-county region would most definitely improve and 

alleviate the current demands that the Everglades Restoration Program is undergoing. As I mentioned in my testimony, we have competing demands from the urban areas that are continuing to grow 

and business and agriculture, and they are all competing with the 

natural system which we are mandated to protect. 

Mr. CALVERT. Right. Thank you. 

And certainly in—I am going to be back in Texas, by the way. 

I am going to be there, I believe, in the first part or latter part of 

September. I think they are trying to set right now, I believe, for 

a hearing, again, on the Rio Grande, which has its difficulties, and 

we are trying to address those issues and we are going to try to 

address that in this legislation, to allow for these projects to move 

forward. And I know that in San Antonio you have done some great 

work on reclamation generally, and you and your community are 

to be congratulated. And you have looked at this legislation and 

you think it would be helpful? 

Mr. HABIGER. Very helpful, sir. While some may criticize another, perhaps, layer of the bureaucracy regarding a central agency, from my observation we have nothing today, and this would be 

far better than what we have today. And I support it very strongly. 

Mr. CALVERT. And, you know, obviously many of us don’t like additional government, but in this case we believe that a coordinator 

would help target resources, and coordinate various Governmental 

agencies. As you know, we have a number of agencies in this town 

that are involved in water outside of just Interior, by the way—Department of Defense, EPA, et cetera, et cetera. And so we are hopeful that this will be helpful. 

And certainly your suggestions on how to make this work better 

we accept from all of you. 

With that, I recognize Mrs. Napolitano for her questions. 

Mr. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Neufeld, I had 

to laugh a little bit when you were making a comment about the 

report for the Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling 

Reuse Study, which this Committee has been asking for a long 

time, for years. Ten years, maybe? And we still have not received 

it. We have seen what we think are copies of the draft. But if you 

have any better luck than us, I wish you all the best. 

It is unfortunate that—one of the things that I did ask was 

whether or not that report was forthcoming, and the answer to me 

was that they were working on tweaking it and revising it. I said, 

well, whether they are tweaking it and revising it, the report was 

done, has been completed, and now there is a new direction that 

is being taken which we all have no idea where it is at other 

than—we look at the 2025 Water Plan that does not include things 

that are totally helpful to many States’ ability to be able to handle 

their water issues, whether it is the shortages, the water cycle—

drought water cycle, many things. And unfortunately, I don’t know 

where the agencies are getting their information or who is advising 

36

them, but they certainly are not talking to the communities that 

are facing these harsh issues. 

So, thank you for being here, thank you for responding and coming at such short notice. 

Mr. NEUFELD. My pleasure. 

Mr. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Campirano, you indicated there were three 

that the Government of Texas had approved. Assumably one is 

Brownsville, and the other two are where? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Corpus Christi area and the Freeport area. All 

three on the Texas coast. 

Mr. NAPOLITANO. OK, I am glad to hear that. There was another 

one, I believe, in Fort Bliss, that the Government installation was 

working with the local water folks with no help from the Bureau 

and others, and I was just wondering if that was one that finally 

got on the books with them. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

To all the witnesses, what type of Federal assistance would be 

most useful to you as municipal water managers? Would it be the 

grants, the loans, demonstration projects, or research? What do you 

think is more vital to what you do to be able to deliver to your constituency? 

Mr. NEUFELD. Mrs. Napolitano, I believe that all of the above 

would certainly be beneficial, but the main thing that would be extremely beneficial is the spirit of cooperation that I believe would 

come with this particular bill. As I said in my comments, the 

memorandum of understanding that we signed with Mr. Woodley 

from the Department of Defense is the first of its kind. And basically it is not an admission of liability on the part of any Governmental agency. It is basically saying we realize that there is a 

problem, and we have got to put aside the past differences and find 

ways to resolve these particular problems. The memorandum of understanding basically says that we commit to work together, is all 

it does, and that we are hoping that through that, through the bill 

and through the other agencies with some of the monies that they 

may have through their R&D budgets or whatever, that we will 

find the way to solve these problems. And we believe that those are 

readily available. 

Mr. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. HABIGER. I would submit that while additional funding 

sources would be helpful, I think the policy that you are putting 

forward in this legislation is even more important. And let’s get 

back to the coordinating agency. Water—and I am preaching to the 

choir—is going to be a growing problem and difficulty over time. 

And to put the infrastructure in place today, when we really need 

it five, 10 years from now so it will have a growing-in period, I 

think is the vital part of this legislation. 

Ms. BAGUE. And I would agree with my colleagues up here that 

most definitely we need a combination and a comprehensive plan, 

but we need your leadership and a policy in place to be able to 

move forward and take advantage of the new technology which I 

have mentioned. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. I would obviously concur with the comments of 

the other panelists. In our case, for example, if we were to deploy 

37

a project today, we have an end user for reclaim projects and, obviously, part of our problem has been the infrastructure development. So, you know, assistance of any form that would help us expedite that could deploy reclamation projects very rapidly. But part 

of the coordination with the reclamation offices, in our case, also 

the State agencies, would be something that would facilitate a very 

serious look at the future deployment of all reclamation projects, 

certainly in our area. 

Mr. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentlelady. Mr. Nunes? 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Bague, you work with desalination plants down in Florida? 

Ms. BAGUE. I don’t. I represent the Governor on the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board. 

Mr. NUNES. My question is really about desalination, because obviously the whole state of California borders the Pacific Ocean. So 

I was trying to get a feel from maybe yourself or the rest of the 

panel, could you give me some examples of some of the more successful desalination programs in the United States, if any of you 

know that? 

Ms. BAGUE. Well, we just completed a facility in Tampa Bay, and 

I noted that in my testimony. Basically we will be delivering about 

28 million gallons per day to that Tampa Bay area. 

Mr. NUNES. And what percentage of the water use is that for the 

Tampa region? Do you know? 

Ms. BAGUE. I don’t know right offhand. We can get that information to the Committee. 

Mr. NUNES. OK. That would be helpful for me. 

Ms. BAGUE. Absolutely, and we—like I said, this is a work in 

progress and there are things that we, the U.S. Desalination Coalition—and I am a member of that—would be able to work with the 

Subcommittee members in providing additional information and 

details on other plants and successes in desalination in other areas 

as well. 

Mr. NUNES. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Neufeld, you can comment on that question, but do you think 

that this desalination process is going to be the answer for our 

water issue and crisis that we face in California? If so, when do you 

think it would take place? 

Mr. NEUFELD. Let me answer the second question first. And I 

would like to address the first item. 

I don’t believe it is the answer. It is certainly part of the overall 

solution. There are far too many areas that we have to deal with 

to supply water to the various agencies within California. But I can 

say for a fact that we have had a great deal of success within our 

watershed area with a brackish water desalination project. That facility is currently up and running. It is producing in excess of 5 

million gallons a day of potable water reclaimed from the dairy legacy that we had in the southern part of our groundwater basin. We 

have plans to expand that to a point where its ultimate, our ultimate build-out there, will have 17.5 million gallons a day of freshwater production from brackish water desalination. We are using 

micro-filtration. And I think the real key to success there is the 

combined effort of producing methane gas through digesters from 

38

the dairies, to produce the motive force for driving and powering 

the desalters there. So we are not impacting the electrical system 

there. 

But those types of approaches, looking at various aspects of it, 

we will deal with groundwater storage, desalination, imported 

water supplies, stormwater runoff recapture, recycle-reuse are all 

part of the answer to the water problem in California. 

Mr. NUNES. If your District was to get up to the 17.5 million gallons, what is that as a percentage of your need? 

Mr. NEUFELD. It is not a tremendous large percentage of the 

need. I don’t know the exact number. Because it is such a rapidly 

growing area, I mean, our demands increase every day. But it is 

also, addressing the issue of what do you do when you have brackish water that is high in nitrates, and you use this particular process to clean that up. So we are helping to clean up the environment 

at the same time that we are producing potable water. 

The particular area that we are looking at is in one of the fastest 

growing areas in Southern California. It happens to be within the 

dairy preserve of the Chino Basin area there—I think you are familiar with that. And in the future there, we are going to look at 

continued growth in that area, so we are going to have to produce 

additional new water supplies. We realize we are not going to get 

additional waters from the Colorado River, and obviously there is 

not an unlimited source of water from the northern part of the 

State. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Neufeld, just for the record on Mr. Nunes’s 

question, how much an acre-foot on brackish water on those Chino 

desalters is that coming in at? 

Mr. NEUFELD. It is about $500 an acre-foot, but it is very heavily 

subsidized. I mean, that is—we get incentives from the Metropolitan Water District subsidized by the local agencies. The local agencies in our area have made a very, very strong commitment, as you 

know, Mr. Chairman, to participate in this particular process. So 

we are not, you know, looking for a handout from the Federal Government, we are looking for assistance. 

Mr. NUNES. What would it be without the subsidies? 

Mr. NEUFELD. I think it would probably be in that same range. We know that it is down below $1,000 an acre-foot now in that particular area, and we are hoping that, as the technologies improve, 

those costs will go down very significantly. I was quite encouraged 

to hear what is going on in Florida. 

Mr. CALVERT. Just out of curiosity, the issue Mr. Nunes is talking about is not—just for the record—is not just salts that you are 

dealing with. 

Mr. NEUFELD. That is true. 

Mr. CALVERT. And that brings to the additional cost. 

Mr. NEUFELD. That is true. That is correct. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank 

you for deciding to come to South Texas and the border there, because I know we had a series of issues with water and international agreements there that we have, and the water that is sold 

to us from Mexico as well as to Tamaulipas on the other side. I 

39

wanted to thank you for that, and look forward to working with 

you when you do that. My District goes all the way down. I have 

in fact Falcon Dam is in my area, and of course, you know, they 

are having a rough time with the quality of the water and the 

quantity of the water. And so the border there, things are only 

going to get worse with time. So we are really—you know, what 

you are trying to do here is extremely helpful and allows an opportunity for us to begin to look at how we can maximize some of 

those efforts. 

I also just want to thank the general for coming up here and, I 

guess, apologize for the whole—you know, we have had a series of 

votes down there. I know you had to wait awhile. But General, I 

want to thank you, because I know San Antonio is in a way also 

uniquely blessed. We have one of the best—Edwards Aquifer, one 

of the largest, I think in the country, yet it just—its size alone also 

feeds a variety of rivers, from the Guadalupe River to the San Antonio River to the San Marcos River, and a whole bunch of other 

creeks. So those rivers flow because of the Edwards water. And so 

when we pump to use that water, those river flows go down and 

create some difficulties. And the general has been doing a great job 

in those areas. 

I wanted him to touch base on especially an area that is unique, 

and that is the storage and retrieval, that maybe you might see a 

way of funding some of those projects because, especially in the hot 

areas like Texas, where we have water that now it is so difficult 

to store on the surface that we can store underground as a way 

of—you know. And I wanted to see if he could comment on some 

of that. 

Mr. HABIGER. Yes, sir, I would be more than happy to. The San 

Antonio Water System began a project approximately 4 years ago 

for the storage of water in Carrizo in the southern part of Bexar 

County, which is about 35 miles south of the center of San Antonio. 

The idea was to take water out of the Edwards Aquifer during the 

plentiful periods during the fall and early spring, pump it out of 

the Edwards south to this area of 3,200 acres that we have, and 

we have drilled wells, and then pump the Edwards water into this 

other aquifer near Carrizo, pumping in excess of 22,000 acre-feet 

into the Carrizo and storing it underground. 

Lots of advantages—security issues, you don’t have to worry 

about; you don’t have to worry about evaporation; our recovery rate 

on that water as we pump it out when we need it in the hot summer months is in excess of 99 percent. We have to treat it, because 

the water will pick up a little bit of iron and some other minerals, 

and then we will pump it back up to San Antonio in 60-inch pipes, 

to use it during the summer months. 

This project has been recognized in a number of national magazines, engineering magazines, as state-of-the-art. And in size, it is 

second only to a similar project in Las Vegas. 

We are excited about the project. It is on time, it is under cost, 

and it will be operational beginning in January of 2004—and we 

didn’t move the first piece of dirt until August of last year. So the 

project is moving very, very rapidly and very well. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, General. And I also, I know we had 

a similar project that at least was looked at in Brownsville in 

40

terms of storage and retrieval initially some years back. And the 

reason I was familiar with that, because we did some of the State 

legislation on that. And I know the Brownsville area is one on the 

bottom of the totem pole when it comes to the Rio Grande, and everyone gets a little bit of it before it reaches down there, Mr. Chairman, so I know Brownsville and the lower part, Cameron County, 

has been—I think it has about over 350,000 people or close to that, 

and then Hidalgo has over half a million people. Those are just on 

our side, not to mention the other side with Mexico, and they are 

all drinking the same water. And it has been difficult to provide. 

And I know that from a conservation perspective, and maybe just 

to get San Antonio and—Eduardo—excuse me. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Campirano. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Campirano, pardon. I don’t have my glasses. I 

saw Eduardo, but I didn’t see the Campirano. Pardon, Eduardo. 

I wanted to mention for them to maybe talk a little bit more 

about conservation, because I know that in the Valley we still 

need—the water flows openly in the summer, and those evaporation rates are over 50 percent. So I wanted to see if we could get 

some comments from both the general and Eduardo Campirano. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. I can address the conservation efforts of the 

Brownsville Public Utilities Board as it relates to the 50-year water 

supply plan. We estimate that through conservation over that period of time, we will need approximately 52,000 acre-feet of water 

in the year 2050 to meet the projected demand. Through our conservation efforts, 12,000 acre-feet of water can be contributed toward meeting that demand. And that will come in the form of, 

again, replacing outdated infrastructure and going to more efficiency—not only in our operations, but also in working with the 

City of Brownsville—through the building development and essentially creating more efficiencies in the way individuals use water, 

a heavy campaign of public education. 

We have seen our community respond to the drought situation 

with doing their part. An example of that would be in 2001, we had 

a peak of 33 million gallons a day usage for Brownsville in a particular given day. Through a heavy conservation effort and public 

education, in 2002 our peak was roughly at 23 thousand. So there 

was a significant reduction of water use. Of course, levying fines 

and being diligent from an enforcement standpoint is also a deterrent, but from our perspective conservation will be a significant 

part of meeting our 50-year projection for water supply. 

Mr. HABIGER. Just let me say that water conservation is the 

cheapest form of water available today. And I tell you, folks in San 

Antonio should be very proud of what they have done. We have reduced per capita consumption by 32 percent in 15 years. It is 

cheap, it works. You have to go beyond the average residential 

user, you have to partner with industry. We just partnered with 

Frito Lay—they make potato chips and chips in San Antonio. They 

have come up with a scheme that is heavily committed to investment. We partner with them to help share that. We are going to 

have a significant reduction in their consumption. It works. I can’t 

say enough about it. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for 

his question. 

41

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going over the 

time. 

Mr. CALVERT. No problem. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Dooley, do you have any questions for this panel? 

Mr. DOOLEY. I don’t, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Cardoza, any questions for this panel—any additional questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No additional questions, Mr. Chairman, but I 

would like to request that the comments from Mr. Cardoza be entered into the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Certainly. Mr. Cardoza’s opening statement will be 

entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Napolitano. 

I sit here cautiously optimistic with the progress we are making on CALFED and 

I would like to thank Mr. Calvert, once again, for the eye-opening hearings he held 

in California earlier this month. As you know, this is a very important issue for the 

central valley and I believe that, now, more than ever, we need to push forward on 

many of the projects and issues addressed in both of the bills we’ll be hearing today. 

I greatly respect Senator Feinstein’s tireless commitment to this issue and she is 

to be applauded for her leadership. Her measure greatly advances this process and 

I look forward to working with her as we move forward. I also appreciate Mr. Miller’s bill and his many years of effort to move these issues forward. 

And I must say that I am pleased with the emphasis Mr. Calvert’s bill places on 

the need for additional surface storage projects, as well as addressing additional 

conveyance. While solutions for agriculture are critically important, we must not 

overlook water quality issues, particularly in the south San Joaquin area of the 

Delta. 

As I have said before, I think it is critically important that we provide new storage opportunities without further delay. For too long, these projects have been 

thrown to the sidelines for various reasons—some legitimate and some no more than 

veiled attempts to thwart any storage facility from being built, regardless of is merits. 

That being said, I also believe that balance is important and we need to move 

forward in this debate with an honest dialogue that considers the long term implications if we fail to act. 

I wholeheartedly support the bill’s focus on accountability for the many agencies 

linked to CALFED and I am particularly pleased to see many provisions that will 

be of particular benefit to my district, such as: 

• The bureau’s water supply and water yield study; 

• Funding for interties, drainage and the diversification of water supplies; and 

• Evaluation and implementation of the San Luis Reservoir lowpoint project. 

I am committed to working toward a solution that helps everybody’s interests to 

be met, because if we don’t, we will continue to face years of litigation instead of 

the workable solutions we were all sent here to develop. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. I want to thank this panel for your patience and 

coming out to see us. And thank you for your support in advance 

for this legislation. We need it. Let all your local members know. 

Thank you. 

Our next panel which is coming forward will be taking their 

chairs. If everybody could take their seats, we will get going here 

shortly. 

Our next panel, with us today is Ms. Gloria Moralez, who is a 

Businesswoman/Farmer; Mr. Brent Walthall, Kern County Water 

Agency; Mr. Edward Osann, Consultant with the Natural 

42

Resources Defense Council; Mr. Stuart Somach, Attorney with 

Somach, Simmons & Dunn—we can’t have a water hearing without 

an attorney involved; and Mr. Greg Zlotnick, Director of the Santa 

Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors. 

Thank you for coming out today. And with that, first we will recognize Ms. Gloria Moralez for your testimony. We heard your testimony up in Northern California, and it is good to see you again. 

STATEMENT OF GLORIA MORALEZ, BUSINESSWOMAN/FARMER 

Ms. MORALEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman, and Congresswoman 

Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gloria 

Moralez. I appreciate the opportunity to again testify before your 

Subcommittee as I did a few weeks ago in Tulare, California. 

I am a former farmworker and farmer. I am a businesswoman 

in Fresno, California. I am a member of the State of California Reclamation Board, and I am very familiar with the issue at hand. I 

know what life is like in the San Joaquin Valley, and water is one 

of the most critical needs. Our valley is the world’s greatest garden, 

and Fresno County alone produces some 250 different crops. In 

simple terms, we feed the Nation and the world. 

However, things would be quite different if one of our greatest 

generations of leaders had not had the vision to take the steps to 

develop the desert of the San Joaquin Valley into an oasis of farmland throughout Central California’s Central Valley Project. 

Today, ladies and gentlemen, the need has arisen again to be farsighted and visionary. I was a farmer for 20 years. I understand 

what we need to grow, harvest, and market California’s crops. As 

a businesswoman for three decades, I understand the importance 

of the agricultural economy to my customers. I have a ground-level 

knowledge of how agriculture works and what it means to the 

farmworkers who make our agricultural economy function. 

Let me speak a moment about the farmworkers, because frankly 

these hardworking people are all too often forgotten when water 

and other farm-related issues are debated. According to the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study for 

California, as of September 2000, the San Joaquin Valley had some 

400,000 migrant and seasonal farmworker jobs. These jobs are 

filled by people who depend entirely upon agriculture for their livelihood, most of whom are members of California’s fastest-growing 

ethnic group. They are Hispanics. Hispanics are also the fastestgrowing group of entrepreneurs, establishing new businesses in 

California and throughout the Nation. Furthermore, many new 

businesses, job creation, new housing, and other economic activity 

depend upon these farmworkers and agriculture in general. However, none of these activities can continue if we do not have enough 

water to sustain our State’s agriculture and support California’s 

population growth. 

Beneficiaries of additional water storage go way beyond our agricultural community. They include the many environmental groups 

who fervently want to enhance the San Joaquin River below Friant 

Dam by providing a source of water to restore flows and improve 

water quality. They include those whose lands and communities 

need improved flood protection. They include those who depend 

upon groundwater which needs to be recharged due to consistent 

43

overdraft. They also include all of us who need and use electricity 

by providing a supplemental source of Western and Valley power. 

They include those who enjoy water-related recreation. They include farmers, farmworkers, farm communities, and all those who 

consume food and fiber grown on Valley farms. Finally, the beneficiaries of water storage include all of us. As you can see, beneficiaries of water storage include every one of us in this room. 

To serve these vital beneficiaries and needs, now is the time to 

invest in our water infrastructure. I believe all beneficiaries must 

pay their proportional share, but we need your help in authorizing 

and appropriating funds to maintain and improve these social, economic, and environmental needs. 

I am heartened by the renewed recognition being shown by Congress in California’s water needs. I am encouraged by the CALFED 

Delta Program studies on additional California water storage, including the Upper San Joaquin River and the House’s recent approval of $2 million to continue the feasibility study of the Temperance Flat Dam and Reservoir. I applaud the efforts of Chairman 

Calvert, members of this Subcommittee, the members of our 

Valley’s congressional delegation, and others who recognize the 

need for additional storage. I urge the Bureau of Reclamation and 

the Department of Interior to recognize the need and support for 

storage and incorporate these needs in the new Water 2025 initiative. 

Increased water storage is important to all of us. We simply cannot permit our Nation to lose its ability to provide nutrition for 

itself and many around the world. We need to be growing more, not 

less, safe and affordable food. We should not be beholden to the 

world to feed us. Without water, we face this dire situation. 

Again, simply speaking, No water-No jobs. I ask that you direct 

your collective efforts toward authorizing and funding our water 

storage needs. As I acknowledged in Tulare, it will years to make 

new storage a reality, but in these past few moments our population has already grown. Now is the time to act. 

May we again be far-sighted and visionary. Let us be wise and 

make additional water storage in our region the No. 1 priority to 

resolve. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moralez follows:]

Statement of Gloria P. Moralez, Businesswoman/Farmer 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

As you may remember, my name is Gloria Moralez. I appreciate the opportunity 

to again testify before your Subcommittee as I did a few weeks ago in Tulare, California. 

I am a former farm worker and farmer, and I am a businesswoman in Fresno, 

California. I am a member of the State of California Reclamation Board and I’m 

very familiar with the issue at hand. I know what life is like in the San Joaquin 

Valley and water is one of our most critical needs. Our valley is the world’s greatest 

garden and Fresno County alone produces some 250 crops. In simple terms, we feed 

the nation and the world. 

However, things would be quite different if one of our greatest generations of farsighted pioneers and visionary leaders did not take steps to develop the desert of 

the San Joaquin Valley into an oasis of farmlands through California’s Central 

Valley Project. 

Today, Ladies and Gentlemen, the need has again arisen to be farsighted and visionary. 

44

I was a farmer for 20 years. I understand what we need to grow, harvest and 

market California’s crops. As a businessperson for three decades, 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 who help 

make our agricultural economy function. 

Let me speak a moment about the farm workers because, frankly, these hard 

working people are all too often forgotten when water and other farm-related issues 

are debated. According to the Migrant And Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study For California, as of September 2000, the San Joaquin Valley had some 

400,000 migrant and seasonal farm worker jobs. These jobs are filled by people who 

depend entirely upon agriculture for their livelihood—most of whom are members 

of California’s fastest growing ethic population, Hispanic. Furthermore, many new 

businesses, job creation, new housing, and other economic activity depend upon 

these farm workers and agriculture in general. However, none of these activities can 

continue if we do not have enough water to sustain our state’s agriculture and support California’s population growth. 

Beneficiaries of additional water storage go beyond our agricultural community: 

• They include the many environmental groups who fervently want to enhance 

the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam by providing a source of water to restore flows and improve water quality. • They include those whose lands and communities need improved flood protection. • They include those who depend upon groundwater which needs to be recharged 

due to consistent overdraft. • They include all of us who need and use electricity by providing a supplemental 

source of Western and valley power. • They include those who enjoy water-related recreation. • They include farmers, farm workers, farm communities, and all those who consume food and fiber grown on valley farms. • Finally, beneficiaries of water storage include all of us. 

As you can see, beneficiaries of water storage include every one of us in this room. 

To serve these vital beneficiaries and needs, now is the time to invest in our water 

infrastructure. I believe all beneficiaries must pay their proportional share, but we 

need your help in authorizing and appropriating funds to maintain and improve 

these social, economic and environmental needs. 

I am heartened by the renewed recognition being shown by Congress in California’s water needs. I’m encouraged by the CalFed Bay-Delta Program studies on additional California water storage—including the upper San Joaquin River and the 

House’s recent approval of $2 million to continue the feasibility study of the Temperance Flat Dam and Reservoir. I applaud the efforts of Chairman Calvert, members of this Subcommittee, the members of our valley’s Congressional delegation and 

others who recognize the need for additional storage. I urge the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Interior to recognize the need and support for storage, 

and incorporate these needs in the new Water 2025 initiative. 

Increased water storage is important to all of us. We simply cannot permit our 

nation to lose its ability to provide nutrition for itself and many around the world. 

We need to be growing more—not less—safe and affordable food. We should not be 

beholden to the world to feed us. Without water, we face this dire situation. 

Again, simply speaking No Water = No Jobs. I ask that you direct your collective 

efforts toward authorizing and funding our water storage needs. As I acknowledged 

in Tulare, it will take years to make new storage a reality but in these past few 

moments our population has already grown. Now is the time to act. 

May we again be farsighted and visionary. Let us be wise and make additional 

water storage in our region the number one priority to resolve. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady and I believe Mr. Rodriguez 

has a comment. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, once again I apologize for interrupting. I have another meeting to go to, but I wanted to mention 

that Gloria Moralez comes from a long family of being good activists. And I see that where she went to California, like our other 

leading lady, Grace, who is also a Texan, Gloria is also a Texan. 

And I know that she comes from a family of good veterans that in 

fact had received some medals for bravery. So I want to just acknowledge her and apologize that I am going to have to be leaving. 

45

But also thank her. She did good work in Texas, so I guess she is 

still doing good work wherever she is at in California. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, your loss is our gain, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Ms. MORALEZ. Thank you, Congressman, I really appreciate your 

words. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Next, Mr. Brent Walthall. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRENT WALTHALL,

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY 

Mr. WALTHALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. My name is Brent Walthall and I work for the 

Kern County Water Agency located in Bakersfield, California. We 

are a State water contractor, the largest agricultural State contractor on the State Water Project, and the second-largest urban 

contractor—a little bit misleading, because the largest is, of course, 

Metropolitan, and we somewhat pale in comparison there. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. We often don’t get the 

chance to testify from Kern County, and we certainly appreciate 

that opportunity today. 

Mr. CALVERT. You might take that mike and just get a little closer. That would be great. 

Mr. WALTHALL. How is that? Is that a little better? There we go. 

I would like to present my testimony in two parts today. First, 

I would like to discuss some policy considerations and then a couple of programmatic considerations that are important to Kern 

County. 

If the real estate industry’s axiom is location, location, location, 

then CALFED’s is certainly balance, balance, balance. And there is 

some deep meaning behind that word. We hear it several times 

today and all too often in CALFED. But CALFED was born from 

an era of conflict in which regulatory agencies needed more water 

from water users and water users were unwilling to give that 

water up. As a result, that conflict meant nobody was winning. 

CALFED has remedied that by providing a pathway where everyone can win. That solution, though, depends on balanced implementation, because any imbalance means that one of those parties’ 

better alternative is to leave CALFED. Being in balance is absolutely critical to the health of CALFED. 

There are several measures currently by which balance can be 

judged—some of them accurately, maybe some not. I would like to 

mention three of those today. Funding, which I believe probably 

isn’t the best measure of balance but is one people gravitate to simply because we all understand money means projects. Last year, 

CALFED spent $400 million on ecosystem projects and $157 million on water supply projects. For those who view money as a yardstick, that shows an imbalance. 

Also, schedules of projects have shown an imbalance. For example, with the ecosystem projects, money equals projects, and there 

is very little process involved in implementing those projects. You 

don’t have to do environmental documentation on many environmental projects, and it is much easier to take money and translate 

it into projects much more quickly. 

46

Conversely, projects that are water supply related typically do require quite a bit of either—at least design work, if not also a lot 

of environmental documentation and a lot of process there as well. 

So the schedules for water supply projects tend to slow down, or 

at least appear to slow down when compared to environmental 

projects. 

An example would be expanding Banks to 8500 cfs. This is part 

of a conveyance package of projects, and that project has been delayed for at least a year at this point. Other related conveyance 

projects—for example, resolving the San Luis low point problem or 

installing screens at Tracy Pumping Plant and some of the North 

Delta flood control projects—have also been delayed. Almost all of 

the projects within the conveyance package have been delayed. 

Sometimes that is just for technical reasons. For example, the 

fish screens at Tracy, it is a technical problem that they are trying 

to fix to both reduce the cost of those screens and improve their efficiency. That is probably a good reason for delay. But nonetheless, 

when the water supply projects are delayed, the optics are that 

they are not in balance anymore. So for those who use schedules 

as a metric, we see people beginning to believe that there is an imbalance there. 

One of the more accurate—in my opinion, accurate measures of 

that balance is how has the resource improved? And to date we 

have seen very good improvements in some of the fishery resources. 

Several of the listed species have shown strong recoveries in the 

last three to 5 years and several of the species that were of concern 

are also showing recovery. Conversely, however, water supply has 

not increased over the last 5 years. And this, for some people, 

shows another sort of imbalance. 

Those three kinds of things, most people view one of those as a 

metric for balance. And to the extent they look at those and see an 

imbalance, it is concerning to them. 

Restoring balance, however, is not at all difficult, and it requires 

just a couple of things. It requires much greater Federal participation. This can come in two ways. The hearings that this Committee 

held in the field were extremely helpful, if for no other reason than 

because they end up in a great deal of publications that are in California and the people who see those publications know that Congress is paying attention. And no one in CALFED speaks with a 

louder voice than Congress. The simple fact of paying attention is 

very helpful to the CALFED process. 

Finally, the thing that the Federal Government can do that is 

the most helpful is make the Federal agencies voting members and 

partners of the California Bay-Delta Authority. The Bay-Delta Authority was set up by State legislation last year, acknowledging at 

the time that Congress would act on legislation later and then, 

simply because of Federal primacy, the State would have to come 

back and massage its own legislation to fit with what the Federal 

needs were. It was, however, an opportune time to pass State legislation, so they took that advantage. Having the Federal agencies 

specifically authorized to participate as voting members would be 

very valuable. 

Finally, I have to conclude by referring to one of the programmatic parts of CALFED that is most important to my agency, 

47

and that is the conveyance section of CALFED. Without conveyance, we cannot take advantage of many of the other aspects of 

CALFED. It is the most immediate improvement to water supply. 

It can be done within the space of the next year, and provides a 

significant improvement in both the reliability and the quantity of 

water that can move south. It also makes it very, very possible and 

much more beneficial to have storage in the northern part of the 

State. Without that ability to move northern water in storage reservoirs south to Southern California and San Joaquin Valley, the 

storage component of CALFED becomes less valuable. So conveyance, in our opinion, is the linchpin to making many aspects of 

CALFED work. 

With that, I will conclude my testimony and be available for 

questions at your discretion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walthall follows:]

Statement of Brent E. Walthall, Manager,

Bay-Delta Resources Division, Kern County Water Agency 

INTRODUCTION 

My name is Brent E. Walthall. I am the Manager of the Bay-Delta Resources Division of the Kern County Water Agency. 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 Kern County. The State Water Project serves water to 

over 22 million Californians and to 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. Chief 

among these is better communication and utilization of the knowledge and agreements developed through CalFED. 

The Kern County Water Agency would like to express its gratitude to Chairman 

Calvert for his leadership and interest in California’s water issues. Water is essential to maintaining California’s economy and quality of life, and California has benefited from the leadership of Chairman Calvert. That strong leadership is essential 

to resolving California’s water problems in a way that expands our economy and improves our quality of life. The Chairman’s active involvement in California’s two biggest water issues, CalFED and the Colorado River 4.4 Plan, have helped to move 

both issues closer to resolution. The Kern County Water Agency is supportive of the 

direction Chairman Calvert has charted in authorizing CalFED and looks forward 

to working with the Chairman, Congressman Miller and other members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee in this effort. 

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. These water supply projects, when coupled 

with continued implementation of CalFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Plan provide a 

balanced program that benefits California’s water supply and its environment. 

48

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 

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. 

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. Direction from congress to implement these improvements will ensure 

they are accomplished in a manner that maintains CalFED’s overall balance. 

Joint Point of Diversion Should be Implemented 

Another significant improvement in conveyance that can be accomplished quickly 

is implementation of the joint point of diversion (‘‘JPoD’’). Use of the JPoD is currently limited by fishery restrictions that were part of a pre-Environmental Water 

Account agreement. Now that the EWA 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. 

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 prevent 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. 

49

Language was included in H.R. 2641 that would require the state to pass legislation regulating the use of groundwater before any federal money would be available 

for storage or conveyance projects. The state, through the State Water Resources 

Control Board recently reviewed this issue and determined that the groundwater 

regulation was best left to those local agencies to whom the legislature has given 

that responsibility, and that the involvement of the state should be limited to a 

case-by-case basis where conflict occurs. 

CalFED’s ability to implement its programs in a balanced manner would also be 

affected by a requirement for state groundwater legislation. If the state is not able 

to pass legislation then no federal money would be available for the storage or conveyance components of CalFED. As a result, balanced implementation would be out 

of CalFED’s control and instead subject to the political winds of the legislature. 

Those who do not support CalFED could work to defeat state groundwater legislation thereby creating an imbalance that would stop work on all CalFED programs. 

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 previously untested 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 regulations. 

Failure of Effective Communications to Regulatory Agencies 

The usefulness of this improved scientific knowledge is directly related to its dispersal and utilization by the regulatory agencies that govern the Delta, largely 

through their control of regulation under the federal Endangered Species Act. The 

assumption that links water use to 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 science 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 attempts to find a scientifically valid theory justifying listing. 

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. However, full utilization of these temporary 

water transfers demands flexibility and prompt action. 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. 

50

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, 

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 

Water transfer and groundwater banking programs require moving water in wet 

years when the water is available in the Delta. The challenge is moving the water 

to into groundwater banking projects south of the Delta. Banks pumping plant is 

the critical path that would allow more wet-year water to be stored for use in dry 

years. Cooperative use of Banks, or potential enlargement of the CVP Tracy pumping plant and Delta-Mendota canal are of equal importance for the federal 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 levees and ecosystems of the Delta, water supply and water quality. Many ecosystem 

improvements have been made 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 expand pumping capacity at the Banks Pumping Plant and implement 

the South Delta improvements to protect Delta users is a clear test of the viability 

of CalFED. The linkages between ecosystem improvements delivered thus far, and 

the scheduled water supply and quality improvements that are CalFED’s ‘‘next 

step,’’ must be effectively communicated to regulatory agencies along with the supporting science. 

Failure of CalFED to deliver these benefits would severely cripple the process. We 

cannot fail to recognize 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 supply and its ecosystem. To fail to recognize this fact would be a harbinger of the inability to achieve the long-term decisions on 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 CalFED’s balanced framework. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

Next, Mr. Edward Osann, the Natural Resources Defense 

Council. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD OSANN, CONSULTANT,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. OSANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Ed Osann. I am the president of Potomac 

Resources. I am a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense 

Council’s Western Water Project, and I am appearing here today on 

their behalf. 

Before diving into the CALFED issues, Mr. Chairman, I just 

wanted to take a moment to commend you for your work and your 

interest in Title I, your recognition of the importance of accelerating the deployment of these advanced technologies for desalinization and water reuse. We applaud the establishment of a competitive grant program for this purpose. We are concerned that 

51

some of the features of Title I may ultimately frustrate the goals 

you are trying to achieve and that we support as well, and we 

would like to have a chance to offer some comments on Title I in 

writing for the record of the Subcommittee, with your— 

Mr. CALVERT. This record will stay open for 2 weeks, so you can 

submit any additional comments for the record. 

Mr. OSANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With regard to CALFED, I would like to open by saying that 

NRDC has been involved in CALFED since its inception, and I 

would like to say clearly that we strongly support the CALFED approach of funding integrated solutions to California’s complex 

water supply problems. And we support the balanced implementation of the CALFED Record of Decision. Among other things, we 

have demonstrated this support by helping to negotiate and pass 

Proposition 50, which is providing well over $1 billion to implement 

the CALFED program. 

Unfortunately, during the past year, a series of actions have 

demonstrated that the Federal administration lacks a commitment 

to the implementation of CALFED pursuant to the ROD, the 

Record of Decision. We have laid out some of these points in an attachment to our testimony, our letter to Senator Feinstein and—

I won’t repeat them here. But in short, these actions appear to us 

to include decisions to undermine, ignore, and defund the CALFED 

program. 

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, we have had relatively little time to 

really do justice to an analysis of your new bill, which was introduced yesterday. We would like to provide you with additional comments on the CALFED title to the bill. 

To assist the Subcommittee’s deliberations here today, we just 

identified six principles that we believe would be central to any 

successful CALFED authorizing bill. 

The first is consistence with the Record of Decision. Senator 

Feinstein stressed this in testimony here today. The ROD is a carefully crafted document, and continuing support for the CALFED 

program will depend on respecting its structure and its components. 

Secondly, beneficiary pay is an important concept that we think 

underlies the CALFED program. 

Third, project-specific authorizations and permits. 

Fourth, consistency with State and Federal law. 

Fifth, balanced implementation, which we support. 

And finally, avoiding ongoing litigation, avoiding wandering into 

issues, like drainage or supply delivery assurances, will help move 

a bill. 

There are several key concerns with the new bill that I would 

like to identify here today. In the interest of time, I won’t discuss 

them all, but I will talk about two or three of them, mention them 

briefly. 

The first is what we believe to be an ambiguous authorization 

contained in this bill. What is CALFED? What does the bill authorize Federal agencies to do? Neither the definitions in the bill nor 

the statement of authorization nor the authorization of appropriations in the bill clearly directs the Administration to implement the 

CALFED program as defined in the Record of Decision, or pursuant 

52

to the Record of Decision, or consistent with the requirements of 

the Record of Decision. Instead, the bill calls for a CALFED program that is consistent with the objective and solution principles 

of the Record of Decision. 

Now, at the end of my testimony, I attached—the last page of my 

testimony is the page of the ROD that lays out the objectives and 

the solution principles. This is the ROD, and these are the solution 

principles and objectives. These are all good words, and we support 

them, but they are quite general, quite broad, and provide nowhere 

near the specificity of direction to the Federal agencies to implement the CALFED program. And as Senator Feinstein said, it is 

the Record of Decision that we have all agreed upon over the last 

two or 3 years. 

Secondly, we are concerned about what appears to be a rollback 

of the Clean Water Act. The bill would restrict the alternatives 

that could be considered in Clean Water Act permitting. 

Another area of concern is the apparent automatic authorization 

of construction. The bill contains a provision that would eliminate 

the requirement for any subsequent congressional authorization for 

potentially billion-dollar water storage construction projects. We 

believe such language is inconsistent with the Record of Decision. 

It is also inconsistent with the longstanding practices of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers as well. And the disapproval mechanism that is contained in this provision would appear to be of doubtful constitutionality. If CALFED storage projects 

can be shown to be good investments, we believe they will obtain 

congressional authorization. 

Another point I would like to highlight would be the obstacles to 

environmental restoration. There are several pages of the bill that 

contain a number of new provisions, not included in the Record of 

Decision, that would have the effect of creating new legal requirements, or slowing down or stopping altogether, Federal involvement in CALFED ecosystem restoration—the CALFED Ecosystem 

Restoration Program. These requirements are not contained in the 

ROD and are not applied to any other programs. Just to point out 

that Title III of the bill provides $300 million in three lines of text 

for environmental restoration of the Salton Sea. And it just appears 

that there is a very asymmetric treatment of this subject in the 

bill. 

For the record, Mr. Chairman, we will provide additional detailed 

comments regarding how these points can best be remedied, recommendations to the Subcommittee. However, without amendments to these provisions, NRDC opposes the bill in its present 

form. 

Finally and briefly turning to the other CALFED legislation that 

was before the Subcommittee today, we would like to commend the 

sponsors of H.R. 2641 for including several provisions designed to 

address key concerns regarding CALFED. We have identified what 

some of those elements are in the testimony—I won’t repeat them 

all, but clarifying the applicability of State and Federal law, the addition of the CALFED provisions requiring the development of a 

statewide groundwater management program, and the additional 

detail toward a credible beneficiary-pays financing strategy are all 

53

especially helpful and we would commend each of these provisions 

to the attention of the Subcommittee. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, just to point out that, in our view, 

the genius of the CALFED program is in recognizing the wisdom 

and the imperative of solving the interrelated problems of what are 

resources management in California together. We urge you to ensure that the authorizing legislation and the Federal agencies’ implementation of the CALFED program reflect this approach. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Osann follows:]

Statement of Edward R. Osann, Consultant,

Natural Resources Defense Council, on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641

My name is Edward R. Osann and I am President of Potomac Resources, Inc. I 

am a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Western Water Project, 

and am appearing today on their behalf. 

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of 

scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public 

health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 550,000 members nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and 

San Francisco. Thank you for inviting NRDC to testify here today. 

Title I—Competitive Grant Program 

We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your recognition of the importance of accelerating the deployment of advanced technologies for desalination and water reuse, 

as evidenced by Title I of the new bill. While we applaud the establishment of a 

competitive grant program for this purpose, we are concerned that certain features 

of this title may prove to be unworkable, and ultimately frustrate the accomplishment of the important objectives that you seek and that we support. We look forward to performing a more thorough review of Title I and would appreciate the opportunity to submit our recommendations for the record to strengthen this important proposal. 

Title II—CALFED 

NRDC has been involved in CALFED since its inception and has followed closely 

proposed CALFED legislation. We strongly support the CALFED approach of finding integrated solutions to California’s complex water supply problems, and we support the balanced implementation of the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD). NRDC 

has demonstrated this support by helping to negotiate and pass Proposition 50, 

which is providing well over a billion dollars to implement the CALFED program. 

Unfortunately, during the past year, a series of actions have demonstrated the 

Bush Administration’s lack of commitment to the implementation of CALFED pursuant to the ROD. These actions should be carefully considered in crafting CALFED 

authorizing legislation. This disturbing pattern is discussed in greater detail in the 

attached comments regarding S. 1097, the CALFED bill introduced by Senators 

Feinstein and Boxer. In short, these actions include decisions to undermine, ignore, 

and defund the CALFED program. 

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, we have had little time to do justice to an analysis of 

the new bill that was introduced yesterday. In the near future, we will provide you 

with more detailed written comments. Our attached comments on S. 1097 explain 

our position regarding a number of issues that the House must also address in 

CALFED legislation. We hope that they will be of use to this Subcommittee. 

Principles for Successful CALFED Legislation 

To assist the Subcommittee’s deliberations on CALFED, we offer six principles 

that we believe will be central to any successful CALFED authorizing bill. Our comments on S. 1097 include recommendations in each of these areas. 

Consistency with the Record of Decision: The ROD is a carefully crafted document, and continuing support for the CALFED program will depend on respecting 

its structure. Its constraints and its interconnections were developed in close consultation with agencies and stakeholders. The Department of the Interior and other 

responsible agencies must take great care to ensure that their actions are consistent 

with the requirements of the ROD. Unfortunately, as previously discussed, at this 

point, it is clear that Interior does not support the ROD. We therefore urge that 

specific ROD requirements be included in this legislation. Further, we recommend 

54

that CALFED legislation avoid creating definitions and programs that are not taken 

from the ROD. 

Beneficiary Pays: In the past, massive taxpayer subsidies have encouraged wasteful and environmentally destructive water projects and practices. The CALFED 

ROD clearly indicates that any new CALFED surface storage facilities will not be 

funded as they have been in the past. The ROD also calls for new user fees to help 

finance the program. These requirements are also consistent with the Department 

of Interior’s Water 2025 strategy. This fiscally responsible approach will eliminate 

the financing mechanisms that have, for some users, disguised the fact that conservation, wastewater reclamation, improved groundwater management and, in 

some cases, land retirement and transfers, are the fastest and cheapest sources of 

additional water supply. It will also provide cost-based incentives for water users 

to conserve. 

Project-Specific Authorizations and Permits: The ROD clearly indicates the need 

for project-specific authorizations and permits for large potential CALFED construction projects. We recommend that these requirements be carefully reflected in authorizing legislation. 

Consistency with State and Federal Law: The ROD was carefully written to reflect state and federal legal requirements. Authorizing legislation should also require implementation of the program to be consistent with state and federal law. 

Balanced Implementation: Unfortunately, as our detailed comments on S. 1097 indicate, several portions of the CALFED program are falling behind in implementation. Maintaining a successful program means maintaining balanced implementation, consistent with the requirements of the ROD. This does not mean, however, 

that every project discussed in the ROD will be constructed. Indeed, the ROD indicates that balanced implementation may proceed even if some proposed projects 

prove to be infeasible. 

Avoid Ongoing Litigation: Drainage and water supply delivery ‘‘assurances,’’ for 

example, are the subjects of ongoing litigation. CALFED legislation should be designed to avoid divisive, and unnecessary, provisions in these areas. 

Key Concerns with the New Legislation 

Upon initial review, we have identified a number of provisions that we believe 

conflict with these principles and that represent major obstacles to a successful 

CALFED program. I will discuss some of these concerns briefly. (All page numbers 

below refer to the draft bill print dated July 21, 2003 (5:27 PM).) 

• Ambiguous Authorization. What is CALFED? What does this bill authorize federal agencies to do? Neither the definitions (p. 3) nor the statement of authorization (p. 17) nor the authorization of appropriations (p. 48) clearly directs the 

Administration to implement the CALFED program as defined in the ROD, pursuant to the ROD, or consistent with the requirements of the ROD. This is a 

major obstacle that will fail to correct serious problems in the Administration’s 

current approach to CALFED and lead to additional conflicts with the State of 

California. Without such a requirement, the federal CALFED effort will be cut 

adrift. Our comments on S. 1097 outline our recommendations for a straightforward approach that reflects the requirements of the Record of Decision. We 

look forward to an opportunity to support a bipartisan bill that would direct 

Interior and other agencies to implement CALFED in a manner consistent with 

the ROD. 

• Clean Water Act Rollback. (p. 19) The bill would restrict the alternatives that 

could be considered in Clean Water Act permitting. This represents a serious 

and unwarranted rollback of federal environmental law. In light of the lack of 

a ROD consistency requirement, it also leads to an unfortunate irony. The Department of the Interior could implement nearly any water project in California, 

due to the lack of a ROD consistency requirement. However, this provision 

would limit the alternatives to those actions that could be considered. In short, 

it does not require Interior’s proposed projects to be consistent with the ROD, 

but it does require alternatives to that project to be consistent with the ROD. 

• Automatic authorization of construction. (p. 21) The bill contains a provision 

that would eliminate the requirement for any subsequent Congressional authorization for billion dollar water storage construction projects. Such language is 

inconsistent with the ROD. It is also inconsistent with the long standing practices of the Bureau of Reclamation, and its disapproval mechanism is of doubtful constitutionality. If CALFED storage projects can be shown to be good investments, they will obtain Congressional authorization. 

• Delta Pumps (p. 25). The provision regarding Delta pumping requires this 

project to be consistent with some, but not all, state laws. It also fails to include 

55

the requirement in the ROD that the project should only move forward if it will 

not harm fishery protection. • Obstacles to environmental restoration. (pp. 32-36) The bill contains a number 

of new provisions, not included in the ROD that would have the effect of creating new legal requirements, slowing down, or stopping altogether, federal involvement in the CALFED ecosystem restoration program. These requirements 

are not contained in the ROD and are not applied to other programs. • Reapplication of appropriated funds. (p. 49) The bill would allow Interior to take 

money appropriated by Congress for one CALFED action and spend that money 

on storage and conveyance. We believe that such thwarting of Congressional directions is inappropriate. In addition, by favoring only some program elements, 

it clearly is not designed to lead to a balanced program. • Compliance with current law. In several locations (pp. 19, 25. 51, and elsewhere), the bill fails to require compliance with existing state and federal law. 

Mr. Chairman, as I previously mentioned, we will provide detailed comments regarding how these principles can best be reflected in your bill. However, without 

amendments to these provisions, NRDC opposes the bill. 

H.R. 2641

Turning briefly to the other CALFED legislation before the Subcommittee today, 

we have had a bit more time to analyze H.R. 2641, the CALFED authorizing legislation introduced by Representatives Miller and Tauscher. We would like to commend the sponsors of this bill for including several provisions designed to address 

key concerns regarding CALFED and S. 1097. These improvements include: • Clarifying the applicability of state and federal law; • The inclusion of key CALFED requirements regarding the South Delta Improvement Project and screened through-Delta diversion investigations; • The elimination of an unnecessary drainage provision; • Changes to the refuge water supply provision designed to maintain Interior’s 

focus on legally-mandated refuge supplies; • The addition of the CALFED provision requiring the development of a statewide groundwater management program; and 

• Additional detail toward a credible beneficiary pays financing strategy. 

We commend each of these provisions to the attention of the Subcommittee. 

Conclusion 

In closing, we believe that the cooperative and integrated approach embodied in 

CALFED is the best strategy to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and improve water 

quality and water supply reliability. The genius of the CALFED program is in recognizing the wisdom, indeed the imperative, of solving these problems together. We 

urge you to ensure that authorizing legislation, and Interior’s implementation of the 

CALFED program, reflect this approach. 

We look forward to continuing to work with members of the Subcommittee. We 

would be pleased to offer specific language regarding our recommendations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. 

Attachments: 

1. NRDC Comments on S 1097

2. Objectives and solution principles of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program as stated 

in the Record of Decision

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

JULY 18, 2003

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510

Re: S 1097, CALFED Authorizing Legislation

Dear Senator Feinstein:

On behalf of the more than 550,000 members of NRDC, I am writing to offer our 

comments and recommendations for further refinements to your CALFED authorizing legislation, S 1097. As you know, NRDC has been deeply involved in the 

CALFED program since its inception. We strongly support the CALFED approach 

of finding integrated solutions to California’s water supply problems, and we 

56

support the balanced implementation of the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD). 

NRDC recently demonstrated this support by helping to negotiate and pass Proposition 50, which is providing billions of dollars to implement the CALFED program. 

CALFED authorizing legislation has gone through many permutations in the past 

few years. NRDC has offered comments throughout this process. As you also know, 

NRDC supported one version of your CALFED authorizing legislation (see our letter 

of January 31, 2002). However, S 1097 differs significantly from that bill. We thank 

you for your continuing commitment to resolving California’s water issues and look 

forward to continuing to work with you. 

Unfortunately, during the past year, several actions have demonstrated the Bush 

Administration’s lack of commitment to the CALFED approach and support for the 

ROD. These actions should be carefully considered in crafting CALFED authorizing 

legislation. These actions include: 

Weakening Environmental Protections and the Environmental Water Account: 

The Department of Interior has recently issued new rules regarding the allocation 

of water to the environment under section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CALFED ROD included the careful resolution of 

issues regarding the implementation of this section of the CVPIA. This resolution 

served as a foundation of the CALFED strategy to resolve issues related to Delta 

water management. This foundational role is explicitly reflected in the ROD, as well 

as in CALFED’s NEPA documents and the Biological Opinions of fisheries agencies. 

Unfortunately, Interior chose not to defend the ROD and their own CVPIA decision, 

in a suit brought by the Westlands Water District. Instead, Interior simply 

capitulated. This decision undermined the ROD and significantly weakened environmental protection. This decision went beyond the issues under consideration in federal court. It also directly undermined the regulatory baseline of the Environmental 

Water Account (EWA) (ROD, p. 56)—thus jeopardizing a CALFED program designed to provide increased environmental protection and improved water supply reliability. Finally, in making this decision, Interior failed to coordinate meaningfully 

with the State and all interested stakeholders—two cornerstones of the CALFED 

process. This decision demonstrates a fundamental lack of support for the ROD. 

Ignoring ROD Requirements Regarding Upper San Joaquin River Storage: The 

CALFED ROD indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation will study potential new 

surface storage, or its equivalent, on the Upper San Joaquin River for the purpose 

of restoring the river and improving water quality (ROD, p. 45). Unfortunately, however, the Bureau’s recently released ‘‘Investigation Report’’ regarding the Upper San 

Joaquin River fails to reflect the requirements of the ROD. The Bureau has excluded all non-surface storage alternatives (e.g. groundwater, conservation) from its 

investigation. The Bureau has also abandoned the project purpose included in the 

ROD. The Bureau’s report describes a project designed to deliver water to the West 

side of the San Joaquin Valley. Not only does this report ignore San Joaquin River 

restoration and water quality, the project it describes would exacerbate both of these 

problems—the very problems that the CALFED ROD intended this project to address. Finally, the Bureau’s report fails to discuss how the CALFED beneficiary 

pays provision would be implemented, were a surface storage facility to be constructed in this area. 

CVP Contracts that Undermine CALFED: The Bureau’s current negotiations regarding the renewal of CVP contracts ignores the CALFED program. In the Sacramento Valley, the Bureau’s draft contracts propose to deliver more water than 

Sacramento Valley users have used in recent years. In fact, the Bureau’s own analysis reveals that the draft contracts propose to commit to deliver more water than 

these contractors are capable of using beneficially. The Bureau has not studied the 

impact that this decision could have on the environment, on other water users or 

on the carefully crafted Delta strategy in the ROD. 

Failing to Fund CALFED: The Administration has failed to propose adequate 

funding for the CALFED program. (Existing authorizations would allow the Administration to propose funding for much of the CALFED program.) In fact, last December, Interior proposed a funding package for a land retirement settlement with 

Westlands farmers that would have diverted funds from CALFED-related activities. 

This proposal was opposed by the entire California House delegation. 

The state of California has increasingly expressed concern regarding the Bush Administration’s lack of support for CALFED. CALFED authorizing legislation will 

only succeed in supporting a balanced program if it is carefully designed to address 

the problems discussed above. We look forward to working with you to craft a bill 

that will address these problems, that we can support and that will strengthen the 

California economy and environment. With this in mind, we offer the following comments and recommendations. We begin by noting progress made in several areas: 

57

Consistency with the ROD: We thank you for clarifying, in section 3(b), that implementation of the CALFED program is subject to the ‘‘constraints of the Record 

of Decision’’. However, given the concerns discussed above, additional detail is required. We offer several recommendations below to ensure that Interior’s implementation of key provisions reflects the explicit requirements of the ROD. 

Meeting Water Quality Standards: We are pleased that section 3(c)(3)(I)(i)(10) reflects the need to develop and implement a plan to meet ‘‘all existing water quality 

standards for which the State and Federal water projects have responsibility.’’ In 

particular, we believe that the Bureau must prepare a plan to meet State flow and 

water quality standards for the San Joaquin River and Delta. The State Water Resources Control Board has found that the Bureau is responsible for ongoing violations of these standards. In addition, a state court recently threw out the current 

plan to meet these standards, which is supported by the Bureau. A new plan is 

clearly required. 

Clean Water Act Permitting: NRDC has consistently recommended that CALFED 

legislation clarify that any CALFED surface storage projects will require permits 

under Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act. S 1097 references this requirement 

in Section 5(b)(8). However, to ensure that this provision will have the intended effect, we recommend moving it to the feasibility study section (5(d)). 

Authorizing Land and Water Acquisitions: We are pleased that your bill explicitly 

authorizes the purchase of land and water as part of the CALFED ecosystem restoration program (3(c)(3)(G)(viii)). This authorization is important to CALFED’s success. However, the bill now includes another hurdle to ecosystem restoration, discussed below. 

We also offer the following recommendations for further improvements to S. 1097: 

Groundwater Management: The ROD indicates that ‘‘CALFED agencies will support legislation that encourages groundwater management at the sub-basin level’’ 

(ROD, p. 47). We are not aware of progress toward the enactment of this legislation. 

This would likely be state legislation. However, Interior could play an important 

role in its development. We recommend that the discussion of groundwater in section 3(c)(3)(A)(iii) be amended to include specific reference to the development and 

implementation of a state-wide groundwater management program. H.R. 2641, for 

example, includes such a provision. 

User Fees: The ROD calls for the implementation of user fees to support the 

CALFED program (ROD, p. 38). We recommend that S 1097 include a specific authorization for Interior to participate in the development of a comprehensive package of user fees designed to support the CALFED program and reflect the benefits 

received by specific users. Once funds from Proposition 50 are fully allocated, such 

user fees will be essential to maintaining a healthy CALFED program. This user 

fee, and the ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ section that follows, are also consistent with 

Interior’s Water 2025 strategy. 

Beneficiary Pays: We are pleased that S 1097 discusses the ROD’s ‘‘beneficiary 

pays’’ requirement for the financing of any new surface storage facilities (5(d)). However, this provision currently lacks sufficient detail. Unfortunately, CALFED has 

failed to provide a definition of this ROD requirement. Unless specific requirements 

are included in this legislation, some stakeholders and the Bureau may rely on the 

very financing mechanisms that the CALFED plan seeks to change. We recommend 

that this section be amended to require a beneficiary pays financing plan including: 

• The full recovery of all federal expenses regarding capital, interest, mitigation, 

operations and maintenance; and 

• A ‘‘least-cost’’ test regarding any public benefits, to ensure the proper allocation 

of any costs to the public. 

The EWA and the Regulatory Baseline: The EWA will only function as anticipated 

if the regulatory baseline described in the ROD is maintained (ROD, p. 55). Unfortunately, as discussed in our introductory comments, this regulatory baseline is no 

longer intact. We recommend that the authorization of the EWA (3(c)(3)(E)) require 

that the first priority for any federal funds for the EWA be the restoration and 

maintenance of this regulatory baseline. 

South Delta Improvement Program: As discussed above, the CALFED regulatory 

baseline for the current operations of Delta diversion facilities is no longer intact. 

If CALFED agencies cannot successfully implement this strategy at the current 

level of Delta diversions, it raises serious concerns about the wisdom of further increases in the pumping limits. Indeed, the ROD clearly states that the proposed increase should only take place if it avoids ‘‘adverse impacts to fishery protection’’ 

(ROD, p. 49) We recommend that section 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(1) be amended to indicate that 

the proposed increases to 8,500 cfs and 10,300 cfs may only move forward if the 

level of environmental protection in the regulatory baseline is restored and if the 

proposed operations do not cause ‘‘adverse impacts to fishery protection.’’

58

North Delta Actions: To assure that implementation of this project is consistent 

with the ROD, we recommend that Section 3(c)(3)(B)(ii)(II) be amended to include 

the following language, ‘‘including full consideration of the constraints identified in 

the Record of Decision regarding Delta Cross Channel operations strategies, water 

quality impacts, technical viability, and fishery concerns’’. 

The Need for Specific Project Authorizations: Section 3(c)(3)(A) clearly, and appropriately, indicates that this section does not provide authorizations required for the 

construction of surface storage facilities. However, we are concerned that some may 

interpret sections 3(b) and 3(c)(3)(F) as providing this authorization. In order to 

avoid potential confusion in the future, we recommend that these sections be 

amended to clarify that any construction of surface storage facilities will require additional project-specific congressional authorization. Alternatively, a provision could 

be inserted requiring that all projects that would receive a total federal investment 

of more than $20 million must obtain a project-specific authorization. 

The Project Purpose for Proposed New Surface Storage Facilities: As discussed 

above, the Bureau is undertaking studies on the Upper San Joaquin River that are 

inconsistent with the clear requirements of the ROD. We recommend that, for each 

proposed facility discussed, section 3(c)(3)(A) be amended to reflect the project purpose in the ROD. In the case of the Upper San Joaquin River, this project purpose 

is to contribute to the ‘‘restoration of and improve water quality for the San Joaquin 

River and facilitate conjunctive water management and water exchanges that improve the quality of water deliveries to urban communities’’ (ROD, p. 45). 

Drainage Authorization: We continue to recommend that section 3(c)(3)(I)(i) be deleted. This provision addresses an issue that is currently in litigation. We appreciate 

the intent behind the addition of section 3(c)(3)(I)(i)(3). However, Interior has demonstrated that no further authorization is required in this area. This language 

should be deleted unless clear constraints are added to assure that, in the future, 

Interior’s drainage program is coordinated with the state and other stakeholders, 

and integrated into a balanced CALFED program. 

Diversification of Refuge Water Supplies: We recommend that section 3(c)(3)(M) 

be eliminated. The Department of Interior has not prepared a plan for the diversification of refuge water supplies. It is not possible, therefore, to determine how 

these funds would be spent or if there would be any benefit for wildlife refuges. The 

first priority regarding refuge water supplies should be the full implementation of 

the legally required level 2 and level 4 supplies. We are concerned that, as written, 

this provision could harm refuges by diverting attention from the provision of required refuge supplies and result in the expenditure of tens of millions of taxpayer 

dollars simply to purchase water for CVP contractors. Such purchases would be inappropriate. 

Land Acquisition Determination: We recommend that section 4(f) be stricken. We 

submit that state and federal agencies will be compelled by budget realities to avoid 

unnecessary land acquisitions. This vague requirement for a finding regarding the 

availability of public land for ecosystem restoration purposes would be certain to 

lead to confusion and litigation. 

San Luis Lowpoint: Given how little progress has been made in securing permanent Environmental Water Account assets (ROD, p. 57), we recommend that section 

3(c)(3)(B)(iv) be amended to provide that at least half of the new storage created 

by this project will be dedicated to the Environmental Water Account. 

Statement of Balanced Implementation: We recommend that the statement of balance required by Section 5(b) be amended to include reports regarding progress in 

areas that have fallen far behind in the CALFED program, including: the achievement of the water purchase targets in the Ecosystem Restoration Program (ROD, 

p. 36); the restoration of the EWA regulatory baseline; implementation of water 

measurement requirements (ROD, p. 63); BMP certification (ROD, p. 62); implementation of a state-wide groundwater management program; and the implementation 

of user fees. 

Monthly Report Regarding South of Delta Deliveries: Section 4(g) currently requires a monthly report regarding South of Delta water deliveries. We believe that 

reports at this frequency would serve no useful purpose. In fact, we are concerned 

that this requirement would erroneously suggest that this provision of the ROD is 

a higher congressional priority than other program elements. Further, this provision 

is unnecessary because the annual report required in Section 5 would result in a 

report regarding the entire CALFED program. 

Funding for Water Measurement and BMP Certification: We recommend that an 

additional $10 million be allocated to water measurement and BMP certification in 

sections 3(c)(3)(C)(iv) and (v). These programs have been falling far behind in the 

CALFED program. 

59

The EBMUD Contract: For the past few years, several environmental groups have 

been talking with EBMUD regarding the project they are in the process of evaluating. We recommend that the reference to the EBMUD contract in section 

3(c)(3)(i)(8) be eliminated and that section 5(11) be amended to require a report on 

progress in developing a broadly supported project under this Bureau contract. 

Given that EBMUD and Sacramento County are not proposing the construction of 

a federal project, we believe that it would be most appropriately addressed through 

the report regarding progress in implementing complementary actions. 

A Short ‘‘Clean’’ Authorizing Bill: Finally, as you know, NRDC has consistently 

recommended that you consider a carefully crafted short CALFED authorizing bill. 

Experience over the past year has shown that it is extremely difficult to capture the 

detail and interconnections of the CALFED ROD in a long bill. We believe that a 

simple bill that is carefully crafted to reflect the constraints of the ROD and to clarify the need for additional project-specific authorizations and permits, could be the 

most productive path. 

Thank you again for your leadership in the CALFED program. We look forward 

to continuing to work with you.

Sincerely,

Barry Nelson 

Senior Policy Analyst

cc: Senator Barbara Boxer 

Chairman Pete Domenici 

Senator Jeff Bingaman 

Congressman Ken Calvert 

Congressman George Miller 

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher 

Assistant Interior Secretary Bennett Raley 

Resources Secretary Mary Nichols 

Patrick Wright, CALFED 

MISSION STATEMENT 

The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management 

for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system.

OBJECTIVES 

CALFED developed the following objectives for a solution: 

• Provide good 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. 

• Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system. 

• Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, 

infrastructure and the ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. 

SOLUTION PRINCIPLES 

In addition, any CALFED solution must satisfy the following solution principles: 

• Reduce Conflicts in the System Solutions will reduce major conflicts among beneficial uses of water. 

• Be Equitable Solutions will focus on solving problems in all problem areas. Improvements for some problems will not be made without corresponding improvements for other problems. 

• Be Affordable Solutions will be implementable and maintainable within the 

foreseeable resources of the Program and stakeholders. 

• Be Durable Solutions will have political and economic staying power and will 

sustain the resources they were designed to protect and enhance. 

• Be Implementable Solutions will have broad public acceptance and legal feasibility, and will be timely and relatively simple to implement compared with 

other alternatives. 

• Have No Significant Redirected Impacts Solutions will not solve problems in the 

Bay-Delta system by redirecting significant negative impacts, when viewed in 

their entirety, within the Bay-Delta or to other regions of California.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

August 28, 2000

60

Record of Decision 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Next, Mr. Somach for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STUART SOMACH, ATTORNEY,

SOMACH, SIMMONS & DUNN 

Mr. SOMACH. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Stuart Somach. I am an attorney in Sacramento. And I am 

here from the perspective of representing individuals and entities, 

both agricultural as well as urban entities, within the Sacramento 

Valley. 

It is kind of a unique perspective in terms of CALFED because 

the problems generally that have been identified, that are being addressed in the CALFED program are not caused and have little to 

do directly with what happens in the Sacramento Valley, yet what 

is done in the Sacramento Valley can create solutions to the problems that need to be addressed in the Bay-Delta context. But we 

tend to look at things like this legislation and other legislation 

from that perspective. It is perhaps a different context, a different 

perspective. 

I also represent other entities. I should mention that because we 

are aware of conflicts, for example, with other folks on the Klamath 

project that we represent. I raise that matter only because we 

know what happens when conflicts go unresolved for a long period 

of time. And it kind of teaches us—that type of experience teaches 

us why a situation or a solution like CALFED is a positive thing 

and one that, if possible, we should embrace and try to advance as 

an alternative to the kind of crisis situation that exists up there. 

I have gone to some length to discuss our views in my written 

testimony, and I would like to just simply summarize some of the 

elements of that testimony here rather than repeating all of it. 

The first major element that I want to mention here is issues associated with alternatives analysis and generally planning under 

the CALFED process. You know, CALFED contemplates integrated 

approaches toward water management and regulatory agencies, 

particularly the Corps of Engineers and EPA, seem to adhere to an 

overly rigid application of, for example, the Clean Water Act’s Section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. And what this application does 

is it requires one to view each one of the CALFED potential solutions not as part of an integrated solution, but rather as alternatives, one to another. As a consequence, the ability to maximize 

benefits through full integrated water management is lost in favor 

of rigid analysis developed to deal with situations that are quite 

dissimilar from the CALFED situation. 

Section 201(c) of 2828 provides necessary direction and ensures 

that the CALFED quest for fully integrated water management solutions will not be hampered by an overly rigid regulatory mindset. 

And we think that this particular provision is a very positive addition to the CALFED discussion. 

Another area, obviously, that is dealt with in the bill is storage, 

and additional storage is critical, we believe, to addressing and 

solving CALFED problems. And to the extent that H.R. 2828 

61

includes provisions advancing water storage, we of course believe 

that it is a step in a positive and the proper direction. 

I might add just quickly that if at all possible, more specific reference to specific storage projects, I believe, would make an even 

better piece of legislation. In particular, as you know, we support 

Sites Reservoir and believe that it should be specifically authorized 

and referenced within any CALFED bill. That reservoir in particular allows one to maximize and optimize the reasonable beneficial use of water by allowing the integration of existing direct diversion rights, existing storage rights in Shasta, available groundwater storage in a manner that will far exceed any arithmetic calculation of the amount of water that is available, and believe that 

because of those benefits, the Sites Reservoir ought to be specifically referenced within the legislation. 

Another critical element we believe that is important is coordination and regulatory streamlining as an element of the CALFED 

process. One of the fundamental problems that was identified early 

in the CALFED process was the multiple statutory, regulatory, and 

agency coverage, or overlap, on critical issues. We believe that the 

Section 202(a) provision in 2828 goes a long way toward addressing 

this particular issue and problem. In my testimony, I have suggested some additional language that might assist even further. 

Two further points I would like to make. One addresses the question of beneficiary-pays. That is a critical issue. But I fear that if 

one focuses on strict criteria associated with beneficiary-pays, it 

will distort the analysis of potential alternatives that exist in the 

Bay-Delta CALFED process. And very quickly, I think that an 

identification that would separate out beneficiaries of CALFED 

projects from those who participate in CALFED projects is a good 

differentiation to make because there are those that would, and in 

fact need to participate in CALFED projects that are not necessarily direct beneficiaries who ought to shoulder a great deal of 

costs associated with projects. 

Finally, I want to mention 2641. Many of the provisions in 2641 

are similar to the core provisions within 2828. We believe 2828 addresses these issues in a better manner. But I want to highlight 

one thing. There is a clause within a provision within 2641 dealing 

with the regulation of groundwater, which we believe is simply bad 

legislation. It attempts to Federalize groundwater law at the expense of State and local law. If that provision were to find itself 

into a CALFED bill, we would oppose that provision. And in fact, 

I would go so far as to say that if that type of provision was actually enacted into law, the Sacramento Valley, clearly, would oppose 

not just the legislation but also CALFED itself. 

I thank you for listening to my comments, and I would be more 

than happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Somach follows:]

Statement of Stuart L. Somach, Attorney,

Somach, Simmons & Dunn, on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Stuart L. Somach. 

I am an attorney with the law firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn, located in Sacramento, California. We represent clients in California, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona on a variety of issues and matters, including those involving water and the 

environment. I have testified before this committee, and other House and Senate 

62

committees, on numerous issues and legislation, including hearings dealing with the 

Coordinated Operations Agreement, the Endangered Species Act, the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, and on prior versions of proposed CALFED legislation. I 

have read and am familiar with both bills under consideration here as well as with 

the CALFED Record of Decision. I have followed CALFED actions and activities 

closely since August 28, 2000. 

Among my clients are entities and individuals within Northern California. I am, 

for example, General Counsel for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the largest 

irrigation district in Northern California with the most senior water rights on the 

Sacramento River, and am Special Legal Counsel for the County of Sacramento and 

the Sacramento County Water Agency, the largest urban area within the central 

portion of Northern California. With this representation in mind, I first offer some 

context for my testimony. 

From the very beginning of the CALFED process, indeed, before the Record of Decision was issued, Northern California interests have been fairly clear that, in general, we were not responsible, in fact or in law, for the problems that exist in the 

Bay-Delta. In our view, those problems were created by others. As a consequence, 

we can only support solutions that solve problems in a manner that does not harm 

Northern California interests. We cannot support and will oppose solutions that 

seek to solve problems created by others at the expense of Northern California. 

I hasten to add that from the onset, Northern California has nonetheless been 

willing to work with CALFED to seek solutions that meet the test of no redirected 

adverse impacts while advancing substantially actions and programs that would improve the Bay-Delta. We are still willing to participate in these programs and, in 

fact, have initiated actions that, when completed, will substantially advance the 

CALFED goals. 

With the foregoing in mind, I offer the following comments with respect to the 

draft legislation at issue. 

H.R. 2828 (Calvert)—Title 11—California Water Security and Environment 

Enhancement Act. 

1. Balance (Sections 201(b)(3); (c)(4), Section 203(a)). 

The concept of ‘‘balance’’ is critical to a successful CALFED. H.R. 2828 (Calvert) 

deals with this issue by first stating in a clear and unambiguous manner that the 

CALFED program shall progress in a balanced manner and then provides specific 

direction on how this balance is to be evaluated and then achieved. Without these 

types of procedures there is little question in my mind that water supply storage 

and conveyance projects will lag behind other CALFED programs and projects and, 

indeed, may never be completed. In particular, the provisions of Section 203(a)(1)(B), 

dealing with storage, and (H), dealing with permitting, are of critical importance. 

2. Administration of Activities (Section 201(c)). 

There has been a fairly large disconnect between the whole purpose and need for 

CALFED and the way regulatory agencies approach their missions. 

The CALFED program is multi-dimensional in nature and not only evaluates, on 

a programmatic level, numerous alternative approaches but, in light of the significant water related problems at issue, in fact incorporates multiple elements which 

in the normal context might be considered, in themselves, as alternatives, one to 

the other. In other words, the problems dealt with by CALFED are so significant 

that looking at one option as if it were in opposition to another is counter-productive 

to meeting CALFED goals. 

While all of the planning and actions associated with CALFED contemplate this 

integrated approach toward water management, regulatory agencies, particularly 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 

Agency, adhere to an overly rigid application of, for example, the Clean Water Act 

section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. This requires one to view each of the 

CALFED potential solutions not as an integrated whole, but rather as alternatives, 

one to the other. As a consequence, the ability to maximize benefits through full integrated water management is lost in favor of rigid analyses developed to deal with 

situations dissimilar to CALFED. 

The law itself does not require this rigid application of regulatory standards. However, it probably requires specific congressional direction and guidance (contemplated in existing law) to make certain that regulatory review occurs in an appropriate fashion. Section 201(c) provides this necessary direction and insures that 

CALFED’s quest for a fully integrated water management solution will not be hampered by an overly rigid regulatory mind-set. This goal might be further advanced 

through additional language such as the following: 

• Alternatives Analysis 

63

Pursuant to the provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 1344(r), information of the effects, if any, 

of a discharge of dredged or fill material, including consideration of the guidelines 

developed under 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)(1), will be included in the environmental impact statement undertaken pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(‘‘NEPA’’) for any CALFED project or program requiring federal authorization and 

such environmental impact statement will be submitted to Congress prior to the authorization of the project or the appropriation of funds for the construction of the 

project. 

3. Water Storage (Section 201(d)(1)). 

New additional water storage will be critical to addressing and solving CALFED 

problems. To the extent that H.R. 2828 (Calvert) includes provisions advancing 

water storage, it, of course, advances this critical issue. Nonetheless, H.R. 2828 

(Calvert) should be more specific with respect to water storage projects and should 

mirror the type of language that is utilized to authorize water conveyance projects. 

We support a Sites Reservoir and believe that it should be specifically authorized 

and referenced within any CALFED Bill. Sites Reservoir will provide much needed 

storage and, consequently, a new water supply for California. However, in this context and specific to the congressional authorizations at issue here, we believe that 

a great mistake will be made and an opportunity will be lost if the feasibility of 

a storage project (like Sites) is viewed in a traditional fashion, with the ‘‘yield’’ of 

the reservoir merely divided up among a pre-identified group of ‘‘beneficiaries.’’

The ability to view Sites in a manner different from the traditional storage reservoir stems, in part, from its location within or adjacent to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (‘‘GCID’’) and districts within the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. 

Initially, this allows the reservoir to be filled through the conveyance of water into 

the reservoir pursuant to a wheeling agreement with GCID for use of GCID’s Main 

Canal and/or potentially through a wheeling agreement with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘USBR’’) or others for use of the Tehama-Colusa Canal. 

In addition, how one operates Sites should take into consideration opportunities 

presented by the fact that it can be integrated with local interests within the Sacramento Valley so that it is operated and managed in conjunction with local interests—direct diversion water rights, other surface water resources, including storage 

rights within Shasta Reservoir, and groundwater resources. Proceeding with integrated water management will provide direct and indirect benefits. These direct and 

indirect benefits include securing independent, reliable and certain supplies of irrigation, municipal and industrial (‘‘M&I’’) and environmental water of suitable quality for reasonable beneficial uses by local interests within the Sacramento Valley. 

They will also provide benefits to the environment, including improvements in Delta 

water quality, the availability of water for the Environmental Water Account 

(‘‘EWA’’), in management flexibility that will be made available in the Sacramento 

Valley, and a more dependable water supply for water users within the Delta as 

well as water users south of the Delta. 

How this could work is perhaps best described by way of simple example: 

GCID has 720,000 acre feet of senior direct diversion water rights and 105,000 

acre feet of storage rights in Shasta Reservoir. It does not need any additional water 

and, of course, needs no water from Sites Reservoir. Nonetheless, in any given year 

it could assist others in maximizing the benefits that can be derived from Sites Reservoir. (The same is true with respect to some districts within the Tehama-Colusa 

Canal Authority.) This could occur in a number of ways. 

• In year ‘‘A,’’ for example, there could be a need for greater cold water flows 

within the Sacramento River from Shasta. In this situation GCID and/or the 

Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority could forego taking all or some of its storage 

rights within Shasta in favor of taking warmer water from Sites Reservoir. 

• In year ‘‘B,’’ for example, for whatever reason, it might be desirable for a period 

of time to avoid the diversion of any water from the Sacramento River. Again, 

for that period, GCID and/or the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority could forego 

direct diversion from the Sacramento River in favor of diversion from Sites. 

• In year ‘‘C,’’ a dry year, for example, it might be desirable, during critical 

months, to ask GCID and/or the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority to utilize 

available groundwater, thereby allowing water within Sites, Shasta and the 

Sacramento River to be utilized for other purposes. 

The ability to operate in a flexible manner to maximize system-wide benefits is 

not unique to GCID or the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority; it is a shared ability 

that could be exercised by other entities within the Sacramento Valley. Sites Reservoir should be specifically authorized within the CALFED Bill. 

64

4. Water Supply and Water Yield Study (Section 201(d)(1)(D)). 

This provision or something like it is long overdue. Moreover, its integration with 

existing authority and work already undertaken as part of the CVPIA should maximize efficiency. We, however, need to move past study and fulfill the CVPIA promise 

that lost yield would be recovered. 

5. Water Transfers (Section 201(d)(4)). 

Northern California water entities are willing and able to transfer water for beneficial use within the watershed of origin and elsewhere. In the past few years we 

have, for example, transferred water for agricultural use within the Westlands 

Water District and for urban use within the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. We have also transferred water to the EWA.. This is in addition to 

local transfers to better match supply with demand within the Sacramento Valley. 

We have proven the benefits that can be achieved through transfers. Two things are 

necessary, however, to insure that transfers continue. 

First, the various regulatory agencies must act in a manner that facilitates, rather than hampers, transfers. The Section 201(d)(4)(B) provision with respect to permit streamlining is a good start in this direction. More needs to be done. 

Second, the underlying rights of those who transfer water must be honored. The 

transfer or refusal to transfer cannot be challenged through concepts of waste or 

beneficial use. A provision to this effect would make H.R. 2828 (Calvert) better. 

6. Integrated Water Management (Section 201(d)(6)). 

Northern California has been at the forefront of integrated water management 

and supports the provisions of H.R. 2828 (Calvert) which advance this cause. In addition to the integrated water management concepts associated with Sites Reservoir, 

noted above, Northern California water interests have proceeded with Basin-wide 

Water Management Plans to maximize efficient use within the Sacramento Valley 

and have, in conjunction with the USBR, the Department of Water Resources, the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and 

Game and various export water interests, developed an aggressive integrated water 

management program under the so-called ‘‘Phase 8’’ process. 

Another example of a project that will benefit from these provisions of H.R. 2828 

(Calvert) is the Freeport Regional Water Project, a joint project involving the East 

Bay Municipal Utility District, Sacramento County and the Sacramento County 

Water Agency. This project has the potential of providing substantial water quality 

benefits to the Bay Area while insuring local urban supplies within the Sacramento 

Valley, thus fulfilling multiple CALFED goals. 

7. Management—Coordination (Section 202(a)). 

A fundamental problem that was identified early in the San Francisco Bay-Delta 

Estuary process was the multiple statutory, regulatory and agency coverage (overlap) of critical issues. Indeed, the whole concept of CALFED was borne out of the 

unintended adverse consequences of uncoordinated activities conducted by multiple 

agencies seeking to address the same problem. 

In a critical way CALFED has, in fact, worked to focus attention on a coordinated 

set of goals and actions. Nonetheless, an important element still must be addressed. 

While agencies work, in part, within CALFED, at critical times they remove themselves from that process and retreat to their individual regulatory processes. Thus, 

critical CALFED programs and projects are still required to scale multiple, duplicative, regulatory processes which add costs and time to that which would otherwise 

be necessary and which consequently challenge the feasibility of any proposed 

project or program. 

The solution, we believe, is not in asking any regulatory body to abrogate its responsibility to another or in the modification of any underlying statutory program. 

Instead, we propose a ‘‘regulatory streamlining’’ or ‘‘regulatory coordination’’ process 

in which all project elements or a program are evaluated at one time and, in this 

context, all regulatory requirements are also made known (along with mitigation 

measures) at one time. In this manner duplicative and/or inconsistent regulatory 

mandates can be immediately identified, evaluated and dealt with; and a project or 

program proponent can understand, at that time, what its total requirements/obligations will be. In this way intelligent decisions on how to proceed or how not to proceed can be made with the knowledge of all relevant facts. 

This process is not unique. The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq., provides for similar procedures associated with the licensing under that Act. Regulatory 

and other relevant agencies, under the provisions of the Electric Consumers Protection Act (‘‘ECPA’’) are required to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(‘‘FERC’’) and the project proponents of all of the regulatory conditions that must 

65

1 16 U.S.C. § 803j(2) does provide FERC with a process and criteria that it must follow if it 

determines that recommended conditions will be inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the Act. 

be included within a license. FERC, in turn, must include in any license issued 

under the Federal Power Act appropriate conditions based upon what is provided 

by those other regulatory agencies. See 16 U.S.C. § 805j(1); Mine Reclamation Corporation, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al., 30 Fed.3d 1519, 

1525 (D.C. Cir. 1994). There is no absolute veto of any regulatory requirement, but 

merely an ‘‘all cards up’’ understanding of what will need to be done in order to proceed with a project. 1 Not only does this save a great deal of time, but it also allows 

the project proponents to make an intelligent business decision about whether and 

how to proceed. Id.

In our view, while a step in the right direction and clearly a good idea, Section 

202(a) simply does not go far enough. Instead, we would propose language such as 

the following: 

Regulatory Coordination 

The Secretary working with the Governor shall develop a regulatory coordination 

and streamlining program in which all permits, licenses or other approvals associated with the permitting approval of projects under this Act will take place. This 

regulatory coordination or streamlining program shall insure that all Federal and 

California agencies’ respective regulatory programs will take place at one time and 

that they will be coordinated in a manner that reduces or eliminates process- or 

substantive-related duplication and inconsistencies, thereby reducing costs and time 

that would otherwise be required; Provided, that nothing herein is intended nor 

should it be construed to affect the substantive regulatory requirements that may 

be applicable. 

As in many situations, the problem faced by project proponents is not the need 

to comply with appropriate environmental obligations but the problem created by 

multiple, duplicate or inconsistent regulations. This problem is particularly troublesome in a situation as complex as the one presented by CALFED. The type of language proposed here, while not fully addressing all of the potential problems, will 

go a long way in remedying the situation that otherwise exists. 

8. Beneficiaries Pay (Section 205(b)). 

There is, of course, a simple logic in the concept of beneficiaries pay. However, 

we must also guard against the abuse of the ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ provision of the 

CALFED Record of Decision being distorted by those who simply choose to utilize 

this provision as a means to block projects, including, for example, Sites Reservoir. 

It is not that identified beneficiaries should not shoulder appropriate financial responsibility, but that the rhetoric engendered by those currently repeating this beneficiary-pays mantra do so by constructing so-called rules or ‘‘principles’’ that reflect 

a very traditional view of project operation. In this traditional view, utilizing reservoir storage as an example, one would merely divide the yield of a reservoir 

among identified entities and individuals and thereby simply determine who and 

how much is to be paid by each of these entities and individuals. Proceeding in this 

manner precludes the ability to view projects in a non-traditional manner, thereby 

missing the opportunity to maximize its benefits. 

Identification of ‘‘beneficiaries’’ will, of course, be more difficult if one varies from 

the traditional view of project operation and management. Indeed, rather than 

starting with the identification of beneficiaries, one would start from the perspective 

of identifying management scenarios that would maximize the operation of the entire Sacramento River system over a period of years. In this manner, system maximization, and not beneficiary identification, will drive future analysis. The results 

of this analysis will identify beneficiaries rather than having the identification of 

beneficiaries drive the analysis. 

Beneficiaries, all beneficiaries, including the environment, should ‘‘pay’’ for benefits received from all CALFED projects or activities. This requirement should not 

be limited to storage and conveyance projects as asserted by some and, in this regard, the provisions of Section 205(b) are well stated. In this context, some further 

legislative directive with respect to this issue, including focusing on the difference 

between a ‘‘beneficiary’’ of a CALFED project and a ‘‘participant’’ would be helpful. 

H.R. 2641—Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act 

H.R. 2641 contains many of the core provisions found in H.R. 2828 (Calvert). In 

this context, we have already commented on them above. This Bill has the specificity with respect to certain issues such as the specific reference to Sites Reservoir 

66

and other storage, as well as specific inclusion and reference to the Freeport Project 

at Section 3(c)(3)(I). These are positive provisions and should be carried forward in 

any final CALFED authorization legislation. However, we believe that other provisions of the Bill miss the point. As a consequence, we believe that H.R. 2828 (Calvert) is a far superior vehicle to authorize federal participation in CALFED. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing and, in any event, because of Section 3(c)(3)(N), entities within the Sacramento Valley could never support H.R. 2641 and would oppose CALFED itself if H.R. 2641 were passed into law. 

As noted at the start, the Sacramento Valley is willing to assist in seeking solutions to problems that have been caused by others within the Bay-Delta. We are, 

however, unwilling to do so if the solution is at our expense. H.R. 2641 somehow 

adopts the misguided notion that it is appropriate to hold hostage Bay-Delta solutions until federally mandated groundwater management is forced on the Sacramento Valley. Proceeding in this manner is inappropriate. Moreover, it is not 

needed. 

Section 3(c)(3)(N) is inappropriate because there already exists extensive state 

and local law to regulate and manage groundwater within California, including 

within the Sacramento Valley. 

Section 3(c)(3)(N) is inappropriate because groundwater management is and 

should remain a matter of state and local law and should not be federalized. 

Section 3(c)(3)(N) is not needed because groundwater within the Sacramento 

Valley is already being managed and does not suffer from overdraft as may exist 

elsewhere within the State. 

Section 3(c)(3)(N) is not needed because entities within the Sacramento Valley are 

integrating groundwater in programs such as those discussed above in order to 

maximize the reasonable beneficial use of water to the benefit of those within the 

Sacramento Valley, the environment and to areas south of the Delta. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today and would be happy to answer 

any questions you might have now or in the future, or to provide additional information if requested. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Next, our good friend from Santa Clara Valley, Mr. Greg 

Zlotnick. 

STATEMENT OF GREG ZLOTNICK, DIRECTOR,

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, 

members of the Subcommittee and staff. My name is Greg Zlotnick. 

I am an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Santa 

Clara Valley Water District. It is a pleasure and honor to appear 

before you today to comment specifically on Title II. I would also 

like to mention, however, our general support for the inclusion of 

Titles I and IV as very important for broadening the scope of the 

legislation and indicating an acknowledgment of water as an important issue nationally and Westwide, of course. 

I have submitted more detailed written testimony for the record. 

For those not familiar with Santa Clara Valley Water District, 

we are the primary water resources agency for the more than 1.8 

million residents of Santa Clara County. We are the only agency 

that receives exports from the Delta through both State Water 

Project and the Federal Central Valley Project. Those exports account for about half of our water supplies in an average year and 

significantly more in a multiple dry-year scenario. Hence, our 

strong interest in the Delta and CALFED. 

I was asked to comment today on working with regulatory agencies. And our district has what I have come to realize is unfortunately a unique experience working with multiple Federal and 

67

State agencies. The strategies we have used can be applied to the 

CALFED program and other Western water programs to reduce 

permitting times and costs without compromising protection for the 

environment. The various resource agencies often have different 

perspectives, different sets of authorities and missions, and different views about which resource should be given priority. Addressing these conflicting and/or duplicative demands increases the 

length and cost of the permitting process and significantly inflates 

project costs, often without an appreciable impact on environmental 

protection. 

We have spearheaded proactive, collaborative efforts rather than 

simply succumbing to reactive, adversarial processes. This strategy, 

with the enthusiastic participation of State and Federal resource 

agencies, has led to many successes in the last couple of years—

notably, a 10-year routine stream maintenance program, which has 

been touted by Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife Craig 

Manson; our Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort, 

which balances and integrates drinking water, flood protection, 

recreation, and fisheries needs; and also our Guadalupe River 

Flood Control Project that protects the heart of Silicon Valley and 

which our partner, the Corps of Engineers, points to as a national 

model for multi-purpose urban flood-control projects. 

Your legislation, Mr. Chairman, recognizes the importance of 

agency coordination and collaboration by proposing the establishment of a centralized regulatory office. We support that concept. 

However, we think it is important that the project proponent be assured of close consultation as part of the agency coordination process and not left to only knock on the door of the multi-agency meetings. To be figuratively, if not literally, at the table with the agencies as they deliberate is critical. 

While we are receptive to the notion of local contributions to supplement agency staff resources, we believe the agencies could free 

up substantial resources by streamlining the permitting process for 

routine or similar projects, including more widespread use of general and nationwide-type permits. In addition, permit applicants 

with a demonstrated ongoing commitment to watershed stewardship should be given an incentive to continue such policies through 

a less cumbersome process using fewer staff resources. 

We support the broad authorization for CALFED implementation 

that these bills provide. The inclusion of complementary actions is 

especially important to my district and is necessary overall to ensure balanced implementation. We are particularly happy to see 

the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement Project specifically 

called out in all three CALFED bills, as it cannot only improve the 

reliability and quality of deliveries to our service area and all of the 

San Felipe Bay unit, but also could quickly create approximately 

200,000 acre-feet of additional storage south of the Delta for multiple benefits, including the Environmental Water Account. 

Another important benefit of authorizing all elements of the 

Record of Decision and encouraging the use of current and ongoing 

authorities to contribute toward coordinated financial, regulatory, 

and staff implementation of the CALFED program is the powerful 

message it sends to the Federal agencies which you, as our representatives, fund and oversee. This legislation affirms that impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:05 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88533.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
68

mentation of the CALFED program is a priority for California and 

the Nation and the Federal agencies should meaningfully incorporate the program into their long-term strategic planning and 

budgeting processes. In other words, CALFED should be considered 

mission critical and it is not going away. 

Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of water quality. Despite being a foundational element of the CALFED program, funding for the Water Quality Program has been severely lacking, particularly at the Federal level. During the first 3 years of the 

CALFED program, the Drinking Water Quality Program was funded at only 45 percent of what was envisioned in the Record of Decision, and of that 45 percent, only 1 percent came from Federal 

agencies. This is simply unacceptable, and more funds are needed. 

If we cannot look to developing new supplies, particularly in the 

near term, we must be able to ensure that we can continue to utilize and stretch those supplies we do have even in the face of increasingly stringent drinking water regulations and the threats of 

what have almost become contaminants du jour. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

again for inviting me to speak today about the authorization of the 

CALFED Bay-Delta program, which is so critical to the residences 

and businesses in Silicon Valley, all of California, and the Nation. 

We greatly appreciate your efforts to pass a funding authorization 

for this important program and look forward to working with all 

of you toward that end. 

I also commend you once again, Mr. Chairman, for your vigorous 

leadership, persistence, and close working relationship with Senator Feinstein as she seeks the support of her colleagues as you do 

from yours. 

I would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have 

about my comments or the issues raised today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zlotnick follows:]

Statement of Gregory A. Zlotnick, Board Member,

Santa Clara Valley Water District, on H.R. 2828 and H.R. 2641

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). On behalf of the Board of Directors of the 

District, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on the Chair’s bill and 

H.R. 2641, to authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and improve water supplies in the West. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has been called a model for resolving water conflicts in the American West: a collaborative, stakeholder-based solution that 

emerged from years of litigation and regulatory gridlock. As the program matures, 

it is fundamentally changing the way state and federal agencies and stakeholders 

work together. If the program is not authorized, we risk a return to the conflicts 

and crisis management that for so many years threatened our state’s water supplies 

and economy, and the Bay-Delta ecosystem. 

Today, the future of the CALFED Program is at risk because federal agencies lack 

the financial resources and, in some cases, the authority to carry out key elements 

of the program. The District would like to thank you, Chairman Calvert, for recognizing the importance of the CALFED Program to California and the other Western 

states, and for your tireless efforts to secure passage of a funding authorization for 

the program. We also want to recognize Representative Miller for his efforts to 

support the program. It is encouraging to see that the three CALFED bills introduced this year take a similar approach to authorizing the program. 

The region my agency serves, the Silicon Valley, has a particular interest in the 

outcome of the CALFED Program. Our region relies on the Bay-Delta for about half 

of its water supplies. In very dry years, Bay-Delta supplies can account for up to 

69

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 

program. 

We have been asked to speak today about the two CALFED bills before the Subcommittee, the Chair’s bill, and H.R. 2641. My comments will focus on three issues 

that we believe must be addressed in federal legislation if the CALFED Program 

is to fulfill its promise: agency coordination and permit streamlining; use of existing 

agency authorities; and funding for water quality improvements. 

My comments on agency coordination and permit streamlining will draw on my 

agency’s unique experience working with multiple federal and state agencies in the 

water resource and ecosystem restoration project permitting process. We believe 

that the strategies we have used in Santa Clara County can be applied to the 

CALFED Program and other Western water programs to reduce permitting times 

and costs, without compromising protection for the ecosystem. My comments on the 

other two issues stem from our role as an urban water agency charged with protecting the public health, and are ones that I think others in the urban community 

would echo. 

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 managing and serving as environmental steward 

for the county’s creeks and streams, underground aquifers and district-built reservoirs. 

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. 

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 

plan to meet future demands. We’re also working other Bay Area water agencies 

to evaluate the feasibility of desalinated seawater as a future regional water supply 

option. 

We are very pleased that Title I of the Chair’s bill recognizes the growing role 

of water reuse in meeting water supply needs in our state and throughout the West. 

We in the West face the dual challenges of meeting the water supply needs of growing populations and restoring threatened and endangered fish and wildlife populations. Faced with these pressures, we cannot afford to allow water that could be 

recovered to go unused. Funding made available through this bill can help support 

our efforts to maximize the use of recycled water in the county. As you know Mr. 

Chairman, we are jointly responsible for a Title XVI water recycling project in the 

City of San Jose, California and we are aggressively planning other reuse efforts 

in our county. 

The bill will also help my agency and others deal with the very real and serious 

consequences of groundwater contamination. In Santa Clara County, we have since 

January been coping with the reality of hundreds of private and public wells contaminated by perchlorate from a site used by the Olin Corporation to manufacture 

highway flares. We hope to keep the groundwater supplies usable in the near term 

through a combination of well head treatment, point-of-use treatment and other recognized treatment alternatives, but over the longer term, the groundwater basin 

cleanup must occur. 

We need federal funding to help defray these near- and long-term costs, even as 

we go through the lengthy process of trying to recover damages from the responsible 

party. The provisions in Title I of the Chair’s bill regarding the cleanup and treatment of contaminated groundwater should be of great help to us. The basin in the 

southern part of our county that has been contaminated by perchlorate is the 

primary source of drinking water for many residents, making immediate action 

imperative. We are very grateful for your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to help us deal 

with this very serious problem. 

Agency Coordination and Permit Streamlining 

Having provided you some background on our agency, I will turn my comments 

to the issue of agency coordination and permit streamlining. In carrying out our 

70

water resource management duties, my agency 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 state and federal agencies to obtain 

the permits for our 10-year stream maintenance program. Working with multiple 

agencies can pose unique challenges. One way we’ve addressed these challenges is 

by working with state and federal agencies in a collaborative or group forum at the 

beginning of the project effort, rather than working with them individually at the 

end. 

Often resource 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. 

Working in a collaborative forum at the front end of a project or program 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. Too often the sequential review process pits resource 

agencies against each other. Bringing related resource agencies together to help 

plan and develop multi-purpose projects leads to a smoother and more efficient permitting process, and also gives life to the projects by building multiple agency support and ownership. 

The Chair’s bill recognizes the importance of agency coordination and collaboration by proposing the establishment of a centralized regulatory office. We support 

that concept, but would encourage you to consider a broader approach to the collaborative process. In the collaborative processes we conducted in Santa Clara County, 

we were a full participant in the multi-agency forum for project formulation, not an 

outside observer. Only by analyzing problems and developing solutions together 

were we able to develop projects that truly met the needs of the community, while 

satisfying all regulatory requirements. In our view, it is critical that the local project 

sponsor be a partner in the collaborative process and have a seat at the table along 

with the appropriate regulatory agencies. 

We are convinced that 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. 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. We intend to utilize this successful approach 

for future projects that we are developing as well. 

The FAHCE is one example of the benefits of a multi-agency collaborative process. 

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 it allowed each of the agencies to have ownership 

in the project. And that ownership in turn translated into more efficient project permitting and support for a better project. 

71

Collaboration among federal and state agencies and project proponents is a powerful tool, but it also requires time and resources. Making this resource commitment 

up front, however, will produce payoffs in the form of better projects, fewer conflicts 

between resource agencies and project proponents, and a more efficient permitting 

process. 

Title IV of the Chair’s bill provides for contributions from non-federal agencies to 

expedite the permitting and environmental review process. While this could be appropriate in some situations, we think that the agencies could free up substantial 

resources by streamlining the permitting process for routine or similar projects, and 

projects proposed by agencies with a demonstrated commitment to watershed stewardship. 

One way to streamline the permitting process for routine projects is through the 

development of clear policies and guidelines and standardized training for agency 

staff that review projects. Consistent application of policies and guidelines at the 

field office level would make the permitting process more predictable for applicants, 

and would reduce the impact on applicants of turnover in agency staff. It would also 

allow the federal agencies to target their resources where they are needed most: at 

those more complex projects where the use of the collaborative process could provide 

the greatest benefits. 

We would also encourage the use of general permits for similar types of projects. 

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. Applying this general permit concept to the CALFED Program could produce substantial savings and streamline the permitting process for many projects and, again, free up federal agency 

resources for use elsewhere. 

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 record of proven environmental stewardship. 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 through the permitting process more quickly. The benefits of this approach would be two-fold: to provide incentives for behavior that furthers the CALFED program, and to allow for 

the more efficient use of federal agency resources. 

Use of Existing Agency Authorities 

The second issue I would like to talk about involves the use of existing agency 

authorities. We are pleased that both the Chair’s bill and H.R. 2641 take the general approach of authorizing all the major elements of the CALFED Record of Decision. While we understand that the federal agencies can carry out many elements 

of the program under existing authorities, the broad authorization that the Chair’s 

bill and H.R. 2641 would provide is important for two reasons. 

First, some key elements of the CALFED Program are not covered by existing federal authorities. One of the projects for which the Bureau of Reclamation lacks feasibility investigation authority is the San Luis Reservoir Low Point Improvement 

Project, a project of critical interest to my agency and other Central Valley Project 

and State Water Project contractors. Solving the low point problem could make 

available as much as 200,000 acre-feet of storage in the San Luis Reservoir, which 

is ‘‘wet’’ water south of the Delta. This project would not only improve the reliability 

of water supplies for state and federal contractors, it could also be an important tool 

for the Environmental Water Account. We are very pleased that the Chair’s bill and 

H.R. 2641 would authorize funding for the evaluation and implementation of this 

important project. 

The second reason it is important to authorize all elements of the Record of Decision is the powerful message it sends to the federal agencies: that implementation 

of the CALFED Program is a priority not only for California, but for the nation, and 

that the federal agencies must incorporate the program into their long-term 

strategic planning and budgeting processes in a meaningful manner, consistent with 

the role envisioned for them in the Record of Decision. 

The Chair’s bill takes the additional step of directing the agencies to use existing 

funds and authorities to carry out the CALFED Program before funds are made 

available under the Act, and provides the Secretary the flexibility to allocate to storage and conveyance projects funds that cannot be used elsewhere in the program. 

72

With respect to the first point, we would encourage the federal agencies to coordinate their existing funding programs under the CALFED program to the extent possible. Doing so will result in a more efficient use of federal resources and is consistent with the approach envisioned in the Record of Decision. The Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Corp of Engineers, for example, have several funding programs that could be coordinated with the CALFED Program to achieve multiple 

benefits. 

With respect to the second point, we agree it is necessary to provide the Secretary 

some flexibility in funding allocations, but we also believe that flexibility should not 

be limited to storage and conveyance projects. From our perspective as an urban 

drinking water supplier, the Water Quality Program is seriously under funded and 

could make good use of any funds that could not be used for other programs. 

Funding for Water Quality Improvements 

This brings me to my third issue, which concerns funding for water quality improvements. One of the CALFED Program’s four objectives is to provide good water 

quality for all beneficial uses, including drinking water uses. And yet funding for 

the Water Quality Program has often taken a back seat to funding for CALFED’s 

other programs. This is particularly true at the federal level. I offer as an example 

the fact that during the first three years of the CALFED Program, the Drinking 

Water Quality Program was funded at only 45 percent of the level envisioned in the 

Record of Decision, and of that 45 percent, only 1 percent came from the federal 

agencies. We must reverse this trend to bring the program back into balance. 

The Chair’s bill takes the important step of authorizing funding for the Drinking 

Water Program. It would provide additional funding under Title I, and also recognizes the important link between water quality and water supply issues. Water 

made unsuitable for drinking due to contamination is water lost to the system; 

water that must be replaced from our increasingly scarce supplies. 

Federal participation in the CALFED Drinking Water Program can, however, take 

many forms beyond providing funding. The following are a few examples: • The Environmental Protection Agency can help CALFED achieve its objectives 

by providing assistance to stakeholder partnerships for watershed management 

and water quality monitoring; participating in the development of a statewide 

integrated plan to improve water quality and protect public health; and coordinating its existing water quality programs with the CALFED Program to 

achieve common objectives. • Actions to protect fish and wildlife can sometimes adversely affect drinking 

water quality. The Fish and Wildlife Service can support CALFED’s objectives 

by considering drinking water quality impacts in all of its ecosystem restoration 

activities. 

• Water quality and supply are linked in the Bay-Delta system. The Bureau of 

Reclamation should address the potential for water quality improvements in all 

of its storage and conveyance project studies. 

• The Geological Survey can support the Drinking Water Program by contributing 

to the improved scientific understanding of water quality in the Bay-Delta. 

• The Army Corps of Engineers can support CALFED’s drinking water quality objectives by addressing water quality in its flood control and ecosystem studies. 

• The Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service can 

support the Drinking Water Program by coordinating its water quality and resource management programs with the CALFED Program to achieve mutual objects. 

Many of these activities could move forward under existing authorities and with 

available funding, but the federal agencies lack direction and perhaps motivation to 

make the activities a priority. Highlighting the importance of water quality in the 

Chair’s bill before the Subcommittee, and encouraging the federal agencies to coordinate funding for projects in the Bay-Delta solution area through the CALFED Program, would send to the federal agencies the clear message that drinking water 

quality is a key component of the CALFED Program, not an afterthought. 

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

me to speak today about the reauthorization of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 

which is so important to the residents and businesses in the Silicon Valley. We 

greatly appreciate your efforts to pass a funding authorization for this important 

program and we look forward to working with you toward that end. This concludes 

my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

73

Mr. Osann, please, for the record, explain your views briefly on 

storage options pursued by CALFED. 

Mr. OSANN. We believe in the balanced implementation of the 

CALFED program. Storage investigations are part of what is contemplated under the Record of Decision, and— 

Mr. CALVERT. I guess beyond just the investigations. 

Mr. OSANN. We support those investigations going forward. 

Mr. CALVERT. How about within the Record of Decision, the storage options that are outlined within the Record of Decision. Do you 

support those storage options? 

Mr. OSANN. I would like to suggest that we supply the answer 

to that for the record, Mr. Chairman. I would rather not extemporize here too greatly and cloud the record with something that 

we would have to correct. 

Mr. CALVERT. We will look forward to your answer to that question. You also brought an issue up regarding, I think you referred 

to it as ‘‘automatic approval.’’ Have you read the Feinstein legislation? 

Mr. OSANN. Automatic authorization? 

Mr. CALVERT. Automatic authorization. You are opposed to that? 

Mr. OSANN. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. Have you read the Feinstein legislation? 

Mr. OSANN. Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Do you support her legislation? 

Mr. OSANN. We have submitted some comments on it and we are 

continuing to review the Feinstein Bill as well. 

Mr. CALVERT. Let me thank you for your statement of Title I of 

the bill, but are you—you realize that in the Feinstein legislation 

it states that the Secretary shall report to the Congress within 90 

days after the completion of a feasibility study, or the review of a 

feasibility study, for the purpose of providing design and construction assistance for the construction of desalinization and regional 

brine lines projects. And in effect, that is an approval process. 

Would you support that for reclamation and desalinization? 

Mr. OSANN. I would like to take a fresh look at it and provide 

you a comment for the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. I guess the question is, if it is good enough for 

water recycling and desalinization projects, to be consistent in your 

perspective on this issue, do you support that over issues of storage 

which are outlined within the Record of Decision? 

Mr. OSANN. I take your point, Mr. Chairman, and will be glad 

to provide you with a written response on that question. 

Mr. CALVERT. On the issue of beneficiary-pays concept, as outlined in the Record of Decision for projects that are regional in 

scope, in benefit of a multiple number of users, is the environment 

a user of that water also? 

Mr. OSANN. We did note the language of the bill that referred to 

the environment as a potential beneficiary. And certainly, 

recreational users have been beneficiaries and there have been 

beneficiary-pay mechanisms for sportsmen through Dingell-Johnson and duck stamps and a variety of mechanisms for many years. 

So there certainly are mechanisms that are potentially available 

for beneficiaries for recreation and fish and wildlife. 

74

Mr. CALVERT. So you would agree, then, that environmental interests would be included in the beneficiary-pays as far as—if that 

is consistent with your perspective? 

Mr. OSANN. It certainly is conceivable. The language of the bill 

is a bit vague and uses some terms that are not defined. We would 

be glad to take a look at further refinements in that area. 

Mr. CALVERT. There has been some discussion about—and I am 

getting back to storage a second—on the Sites Reservoir. Do you 

believe that there is some benefit in the Sites Reservoir? 

Mr. OSANN. There may be some benefits in Sites, there may be 

some benefits in a number of surface storage projects that are contemplated. The question is whether the benefits will outweigh the 

costs. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, you know, I guess I have been here for 

awhile now. I was here in the beginning when we all came to an 

agreement back in 19—I believe that was 1993, 1994, when we 

all—almost, I think, all of us—signed on to the concept of 

CALFED. And I remember all of us getting together at that time 

and saying basically we are all going to get better together. And 

the environmental community, the agricultural community, the 

urban community all signed on to the concept that we were going 

to get better together. And part of that was, of course, that we had 

to fix some of the past sins, especially in the Bay-Delta, but elsewhere, and that at some point, though, the end, the carrot was that 

there would be water in the end, is the way I understood it. And 

I tell you this, from almost all of my colleagues—I am sure—I 

won’t say 100 percent, but I would say a great majority of them believed at the end that these storage projects, including Sites and 

other storage which is outlined—with, by the way, in both my legislation and in Senator Feinstein’s legislation—would be acceptable 

at the end. And I am hopeful that in your comments that you send 

back to this Committee for the record, that you will remember that. 

Because it is important that we go back to the people that we represent in California, that the significant amount of money that we 

are being asked to expend, and have expended, and more in the future, that at the end of this process, that we have water. 

With that, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You just brought up 

some points and you got me to thinking about what really we need 

to do. And I made the statement while I was not only touring 

Northern California but also during the hearings, is that most of 

the Northern California, they use water basically—not basically, 

but most of the water goes for farming. Restoration of the ecosystem, the—as far as natural resources are concerned, for the 

Bay-Delta, for fisheries, for et cetera. And I keep saying Southern 

California uses for drinking most of the time. Because we have the 

numbers of people that drink water, the increasing numbers. And 

so there is a little bit of a difference as far as I’m concerned. Well, 

we are not going into the debate here, because I can start about 

the meters. 

Mr. Osann, there has been comments about those who say that 

CALFED has spent a tremendous amount of money on the ecosystem restoration projects. What is your answer to that? 

75

Mr. OSANN. Well, CALFED contemplates, you know, expansive 

programs across a variety of purposes. And we have had 40 or 50 

years of ecosystem degradation. Even under current conditions, we 

have the San Joaquin River, which is the second-largest river in 

the State, you know, has reaches that are dry 2 years out of there, 

or more. And so it is going to be a big job to restore habitat, to restore fish and wildlife—it is going to be a big deal. But it is—we 

recognize that the fabric of CALFED involves addressing a number 

of inter-related—that these issues are inter-related and addressing 

a number of them concurrently, we sort of have to walk and chew 

gum here. And we are looking for a program to go forward on a 

balanced basis. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, again, I hear some of my colleagues’ 

comment that no matter what the project for storage, that the environmentalists will not be in favor of them. And to me, that doesn’t 

seem like the response I am looking for sitting at the table and trying to figure out how do we work together on these. 

Mr. OSANN. We have—in the course of pursuing San Joaquin 

River restoration, as a for-instance, we have been supporting the 

storage exploration—investigation for the Upper San Joaquin River 

for purposes, as called for in the ROD, of habitat restoration and 

improving water quality in the Delta, including for the benefit of 

those who use Delta water for drinking water. We have 

conducted—for the last three or 4 years, we have been conducting 

collaborative studies with the Friant water users on opportunities, 

including storage opportunities, for—that would provide the mechanism for accomplishing those purposes. 

However, the results have been, of these cooperative analyses 

that we have done with the Friant water users, that the surface 

water storage options pencil out to be the most expensive options 

to accomplish these purposes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is quite a convoluted issue. 

Now, going back to the regulatory streamlining, how do you see 

that need as a priority. Or if we are looking at—I would call it fasttracking; I know my colleague over here has a different name for 

it—but the storage projects. How would you see the need for this 

regulatory streamlining have an effect on CALFED? 

Mr. OSANN. Are you referring to the provision that provides for 

the authorization in this bill of storage projects? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Precisely. 

Mr. OSANN. We think this is a major departure from the Record 

of Decision, and frankly, we view this as an impediment to passing 

the bill. I just observe that there probably hasn’t been more interest in reforming the Corps of Engineers program today than there 

has been over the last 20 years. One of the key issues that keeps 

coming up in WRDA is inclusion of projects that don’t have completed feasibility reports. And the Committees and the Congress 

and the administration by and large hold the line that projects that 

are authorized for construction have completed feasibility reports. 

And it seems to us that the bill, if this provision stays in it, would 

be headed for some difficult times ahead. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Nunes. 

76

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first welcome 

Ms. Moralez, who comes from my area, and I want to thank you 

again for testifying before our Committee. And thank you for your 

prior testimony in Tulare. 

Also, it is good to see my old friend—Greg, it is good to see you 

again. 

I want to just go back to some of the questions that Ms. 

Napolitano and Mr. Calvert asked Mr. Osann. Maybe you didn’t 

understand the first part of the question when Mr. Calvert asked 

you, because you said that you don’t agree with the authorization 

upon completion of feasibility study. That was what you just explained to Ms. Napolitano, correct? 

Mr. OSANN. Correct. 

Mr. NUNES. And yet you are supporting Mr. Miller’s bill that 

does exactly that. 

Mr. OSANN. We have identified several features of the Miller Bill, 

H.R. 2641, that we support. We have not provided a final set of 

comments on that bill, either. 

Mr. NUNES. But you are supporting the bill. 

Mr. OSANN. I am not here today to provide a blanket endorsement to H.R. 2641, no, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. Mm-hm. But I find it very disingenuous that it is 

OK when it comes to support issues that you care about, but when 

it comes to issues that other folks care about, it is not OK and it 

is unconstitutional, to use the words that you used. I think that is 

what you said. 

So, you know, I haven’t been here, as the other members of the 

Committee have been here, for 10 years working on CALFED. But 

at the end of the day, the other four people that are sitting here 

know that you can’t continue to add people to the State of California and not have new yield somewhere, somehow. 

You know, there are a lot of us that are in favor of the San Joaquin River being restored. I agree with that, too. But I don’t see 

how you can do that without building new storage on the San Joaquin River. And you talk about how do you explain during the 

droughts, prior droughts, had the water projects not been in place, 

what would have happened to rivers like the San Joaquin when 

you incur an eight- or 9-year drought? Would there have been fish 

there when water wasn’t flowing? 

Mr. OSANN. Well, you also have tremendous amount of consumptive use. 

Mr. NUNES. I understand that. But without the water project 

there, the rivers wouldn’t run during these long periods of drought. 

Mr. OSANN. That has certainly been the case for many of California’s rivers, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. There are rivers in California that now run practically year-round because of the water storage projects. And I— 

Mr. OSANN. It is good for habitat, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. And I am one of the opinion that water storage 

projects can be very beneficial to the environment, and we can do 

things like restoring water down the San Joaquin River. Yesterday 

we sat in with the folks looking at the through-Delta options that 

can improve water quality for the Delta. 

77

So, I am going to be very blunt with you here. We have folks 

from both sides of the aisle supporting this bill. We have every 

major city, farm organization, and labor group supporting new 

water storage facilities. My patience is going to grow very, very 

thin with groups like the NRDC if they continue to stall this process longer than what I feel it has already been stalled for. And I 

hope that you will, as Mrs. Napolitano asked, come to the table, 

let’s work on this legislation, and let’s move it. 

I mean, I think this is a good bill. Mr. Dooley’s co-sponsor, Mrs. 

Napolitano, Mr. Calvert. I think that it has been beneficial for the 

environment. And I just feel like you are going to put up what I 

call political roadblocks and not roadblocks that really have substantial data behind them. And much like this—I don’t know what 

I did with your statement here—the problem that you have with 

automatic authorization of construction. You don’t have a problem 

with it when it comes to the projects that you want, but you do 

have a problem when it comes to projects that you don’t want. And 

I find that very alarming. And I hope that—I assume you are going 

to address this in some statement, as Mr. Calvert—you are going 

to provide some statement to the Committee? 

Mr. OSANN. Yes. We have indicated to the Chair that we would. 

Mr. NUNES. Well, I look forward to reading that testimony. 

Ms. Moralez, since you live in Fresno County—can you comment 

on what your thought is for storage on the Upper San Joaquin 

River? I know you did it in your statement, I guess I should ask 

you, do you think that it would be beneficial for the environment, 

or do you think it would hurt the environment? 

Ms. MORALEZ. I believe it is going to help. I have been there 30 

years and I have been very much a part of every aspect of what 

happens in the area because of my involvement in agriculture and 

the business community. Also, I am very committed to the environment myself. I want the San Joaquin River to flow again. And I 

think, realistically speaking, when you look at how do we divide 

the limited water we have, well, I doubt very seriously that any of 

us, even if you are 100 percent strictly environmentally minded, 

that you are going to stop providing water for the people that live 

in the area or providing water for agriculture so that—to stop the 

production itself, or to stop the water to continue dealing with the 

issue of growth that we have. 

I think, realistically speaking, we can provide the water for the 

San Joaquin River, but we are going to be realistic and go and 

build additional storage. Without storage, I think we are going to 

go on fighting for the next 50 years and we won’t resolve the problem. 

Meanwhile, the population growth is happening so fast in the 

Valley that I truly believe we will have a major economic and social 

problem. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. I assume my time has expired. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Moralez. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Dooley. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for taking the time to come. 

I think what I would like focus on a little bit here are some of 

the opportunities for quicker fixes that can provide additional supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:05 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88533.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
78

plies of water, and one of those, Mr. Walthall, you identified in 

your testimony in terms of the increase in the pumping capacity, 

primarily at Banks, and how that is a critical component to improving the plumbing, which will provide additional water supplies. 

And there currently are, I guess, talks that are taking place now 

that are making progress. And I guess I would like to understand 

a little bit in terms of what is happening now and what the Calvert 

legislation would do to even expand upon that. 

Mr. WALTHALL. Certainly. I would be delighted to respond. 

The talks you are referring to are discussions between the CVP 

contractors, the Federal contractors, and the State contractors. And 

we spent a great deal of time last week with each other, probably 

more time than most people would have thought was healthy, 

given our past conflicts. And the resolution that came out of that 

was an understanding that expanding Banks’s capacity, if it is to 

occur, has to benefit both projects. That is not something that was 

intuitively understood from the CALFED ROD, but it is a reality 

of how that project moves forward. 

One of the elements of the Chairman’s bill that will facilitate 

that is a much quicker protection for some of the in-Delta water 

users. Specifically, when you increase pumping, you decrease water 

levels in the Delta. And the way you compensate for that is by constructing permanent barriers that allow the tides to flow in, raise 

those water levels, and then prohibit the tide from flowing back 

out. As a result, the water levels remain higher. 

Those permanent barriers are included in the Chairman’s bill as 

something that needs to be accelerated in their construction. In 

other words, they are currently scheduled for 2008, but the Chairman’s bill would request that the Federal agencies accelerate that 

and work diligently with the State agencies who are leads for that 

project, and accelerate the permanent installation of those permanent barriers. The goal being that once you have provided those 

protections for the in-Delta users more quickly, you can use to your 

greater advantage all 8500 cfs of new capacity. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Now, if we did construct those facilities and those 

barriers, they would have to be constructed in a manner that was 

consistent with all State and Federal laws that are currently in 

place? 

Mr. WALTHALL. Of course. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Osann, in your testimony, I think you identified 

that you were concerned that the legislation wasn’t providing that 

protection of all State and Federal laws. Where is the disagreement 

here? 

Mr. OSANN. I am not sure I can speak with the specificity you 

are looking for this afternoon. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Your statement said the provision regarding Delta 

pumping requires a project to be consistent with some but not all 

State laws. 

Mr. OSANN. Right. 

Mr. DOOLEY. So I just assumed that, you know, you would have 

some idea in terms of what State laws it wouldn’t be subject to. 

Mr. OSANN. Those that are not enumerated in the bill. The bill 

calls out certain laws in particular that pumping has to be conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:05 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88533.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
79

sistent with, leaving other laws—perhaps the Fish and Game Code 

or other aspects of California State law—not covered, by inference. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Walthall, would you respond to that? I mean, 

I didn’t know we could build anything that wasn’t subject to every 

law that was on the book today. 

Mr. WALTHALL. And I am not exactly sure, too. I think it is more 

the storage provisions of the Chairman Calvert’s bill that was probably objectionable to NRDC. 

Mr. DOOLEY. No, this is Delta Pumps, page 25 specifically, that 

had that citation in it. 

Mr. WALTHALL. —read that, Mr. Osann? 

Mr. DOOLEY. It is on page 4 of the testimony, I believe. But 

whatever— 

Mr. WALTHALL. I guess, let me respond in this way. The barriers 

are part of the overall South Delta Improvement program, which 

expands the pumping capacity. And that process is currently being 

handled by the State Department of Water Resources. And they are 

right now doing their EIR for that, which is under SEQA—State 

law, SEQA requires. They are doing that in tandem with the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation is the lead on the EIS. So both 

NEPA and SEQA are being complied with for the entire South 

Delta Improvement program, which includes the barriers and expansion of the pumps. 

Mr. DOOLEY. But then I guess, Mr. Osann, as long as it was complying with all these laws, you—I mean, the NRDC— wouldn’t 

have any problem with the increasing of the pumping capacity at 

Banks? 

Mr. OSANN. Let me give you a response to that for the record. 

Mr. DOOLEY. All right. Moving on to another issue which is a little bit of a distinct— 

Is it all right if I go ahead and ask one other question here on 

this issue? 

Another issue where there is a difference in terms of an approach, between the Calvert proposal and the one that has been offered by Mr. Miller is how we meet refuge water supplies. And I 

guess I am a little bit—I don’t understand why—you know, what 

the rationale is for the differences. Mr. Calvert’s bill basically requires no more than $30 million to be expended to be complying 

with Level 2 and Level 4 refuge water supplies. Under Mr. Miller’s 

proposal, it says no more than $30 million may be expended to 

comply with Level 2 and Level 4 refuge water supplies requirements as set forth in CVPIA. But they say no such funds shall be 

expended first to acquire the quantities of Level 4 water before the 

money can be spent to acquire the 26,000 acre-feet of Level 2, replacement supplies. 

What is the objective here? I am a little bit concerned that if I 

have my water users and contractors south of the Delta, is there 

a reason for me to be concerned about what would be the impact 

on this? Can someone respond? Greg, you are nodding your head. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Well, I am certainly not an expert, and I would 

defer to Brent. But my understanding is yes, they would be concerned, that it is essentially a flip-flop of what current priority is 

in terms of trying to find those supplies. 

80

Mr. WALTHALL. My recollection of the CVPIA is six or 7 years 

old. But the way I understand that provision to work, it would 

change the order of which money pays for which level of refuge 

supplies. And I think the way it is in Congressman Miller’s bill, it 

would mean that more of that money was a reimbursable expense 

of the CVP, rather than a nonreimbursable expense—in other 

words, a greater cost on the CVP’s contractors. 

Mr. DOOLEY. OK. All right, thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman. 

I just want to point out for the record Section, I believe, 207 on 

page 51 of the bill is Compliance With State and Federal Law. 

Nothing in this Act—it starts out—invalidates or preempts State 

water law or interstate compact governing water, et cetera, et 

cetera. Just for the record. As the gentleman well knows, especially 

in our State, nothing gets done without meeting both State and 

Federal law. 

On the Bay-Delta, and I would like to ask the gentlemen, Mr. 

Zlotnick and Mr. Somach, on the issue of the Sites Reservoir. Mr. 

Zlotnick first. Do you believe that the Sites Reservoir is important 

not just for storage reasons but for water quality issues that are 

important within the Delta? 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. If I may answer this way, Mr. Chairman. Because 

the investigations are going on right now in terms of all the storage, integrated storage investigations, I wouldn’t want to conclude 

on any particular project. However, I will say that storage in general, whether, frankly, it is on the San Joaquin or off Sacramento 

in the north, whether it is Los Vaqueros, whether it is the low 

point project, whatever, storage today is now considered a tool for 

what you described as the need for increased flexibility in the system. And that is how our agency would look at it, to look at multiple benefits that could be provided by essentially providing additional buckets of water that could be filled when the water was 

available so we could utilize it when the system is depleted. 

And in terms of Sites, I will say that one of the important issues 

with respect to Sites in terms of multiple benefits is it is north of 

the Delta storage, which would potentially have a positive effect in 

how it was operated for water quality within the Delta. 

We also have the issue that has not been raised today, but which 

is out there on the horizon, and that is climate change. And in 

terms of what is happening to the snow pack in our State, both 

from a temporal aspect and where the snow or rain will fall, there 

is a potential to have Sites provide some additional flood control 

benefit in the Sacramento Valley potentially. And that is important. I served as vice chair of the Government’s Flood Plain Management Task Force, and that was an important issue. We put into 

the recommendations of looking at that whole issue. 

So that would be important in the Sacramento Valley in particular as well. So if I could just answer it in terms of the flexibility 

that storage provides, then north of the Delta can help with water 

quality in the Delta. 

Mr. CALVERT. I guess the—as I am getting to, there is environmental benefit to some of these—For instance, on Shasta, the 

additional 300,000 acre-feet in Shasta is—isn’t it true that much of 

81

the benefit goes to cooling down the downstream water in order to 

help the salmon runs at— 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. Well, your initial comment about water quality—

but there is no question that environmental benefits are part of the 

multiple benefits that storage could provide, whether it is cold 

water flows or it is the timing of flows into the system when fisheries need it. 

Mr. CALVERT. Right. Mr. Somach, your comment on—I understand you spent a lot of time on the Sites Reservoir issue. 

Mr. SOMACH. We have spent quite a bit of time on the Sites Reservoir issue. 

Yes, I—you know, it is kind of funny. There is this notion of 

north versus south that always kind of comes up, and use of water 

in the Sacramento Valley for agricultural purposes. The underlying 

reality of the situation is that every drop of water that isn’t consumed by crops in the Sacramento Valley returns to the system. It 

is one of the benefits, actually, of the way the system operates, is 

that one can actually go in there and optimize the utilization of 

water in a manner that ensures not only that the agricultural use 

in the Valley is sustained, but that every drop of water not consumed by crops up there moves into the system. 

Sites Reservoir really allows the folks in the Sacramento Valley 

to be an active participant in the CALFED process by providing 

more than could be provided with just top-down control-type of 

mechanisms that would force people to do things in one way or another. And the reason why it does that is because it allows flexibility and it allows alternatives. And I think what I mentioned before is the fact that one could take existing resources and meld 

them with Sites Reservoir in such a way as to actually increase the 

overall benefits of all of the existing resources, whether they be direct diversion water rights, storage water rights in Shasta, or 

groundwater. 

And I think the best example I can use is Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, which lies adjacent to where Sites Reservoir will be. 

That district as 825,000 acre-feet of water and water rights that it 

relies upon from the Sacramento River. If that district cooperates 

in the context of the Sites Reservoir, it can do many things, including go to Sites Reservoir at various times to alleviate water-quality 

and other problems in the Sacramento River, where supply it otherwise would have taken from the Sacramento River is allowed to 

move down through the system. 

It can, in addition to that, at any given time utilize Sites Reservoir in conjunction with groundwater that it has available to it, 

allowing, in certain years, water that otherwise it would take from 

the Sacramento River, again, to be used for environmental and 

other uses through the Delta. 

Mr. CALVERT. For instance, on the issue of—and I know this is 

an emotional subject to some—water transfers, but many in the environmental community are supportive of water transfers. If a voluntary seller of water for whatever reason—during times of plenty 

he wanted to sell some water to whomever—would a Sites Reservoir be helpful in having additional storage in order to store that 

water for—transfer that water later on? 

82

Mr. SOMACH. Yes, absolutely. In fact, over the last 3 years, we 

have transferred water south to agricultural users in the 

Westlands Water District. And in fact, this year we are currently 

in the middle of transferring water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. One of the problems in particular with 

the Metropolitan transfer was problems with storing water so that 

it would be available at appropriate— 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, I was going to ask that question. There was 

a problem of storage water in the State Water Project and the 

State reservoir—they didn’t have the capacity. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. SOMACH. It was a capacity issue both in the reservoir as well 

as a capacity issue given the existing conveyance problems through 

the Delta. Storage facilities like Sites would allow us, then, to back 

water up so that it could be available when there was available 

capacity. 

Mr. CALVERT. What I am trying to get—is the system today we 

are operating at complete capacity? I mean, we are straining the 

system that we have because we haven’t really added to the system 

in so long? And that is what this legislation attempts to do, is to 

provide some capacity to the system both in storage, conveyance, 

and obviously in our first title, to create yield through conservation 

and other purposes basically across the board. 

Any additional questions for this panel? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You just brought something else to mind, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you for giving me the time. And that is, I have 

heard a lot of above-ground water storage, conveyance, everything 

else, but nothing about looking for aquifers of the capacity to expand aquifers. Can anybody answer that? 

Mr. SOMACH. Yes, I certainly can, and it really goes hand-inhand with this discussion of Sites Reservoir. One of the things that 

we are looking at in the context of Sites Reservoir is how better 

to integrate with that resource plus other resources we have up 

there that are available groundwater, so that we can maximize the 

ability to conjunctively use groundwater that is available in the 

Sacramento Valley with all these other resources. 

We just finished what is called the Phase 8 process, which was 

a process that involved the Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Fish and Game, the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

Water Resources, south-of-Delta CVP and SWP exporters on one 

side, and then the Sacramento Valley interests on the other side. 

And among the things that came out of it was the development of 

numerous projects, groundwater-related projects being among the 

foremost of those projects that will, No. 1, provide water for the 

Sacramento Valley, provide water for the environment in terms of 

Delta outflow, and also make water available for south of Delta to 

water uses. 

I might add that we are moving forward with a long-term look 

at what can be done if we expand the kind of program I have just 

discussed. And again—and I hate to sound like a broken record 

here, but Sites Reservoir looms very large in that long-term plan, 

because with it we can do so much more for all three of the elements I have just— 

83

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think you missed my point, though. I am 

talking about aquifer storage—underground, to avoid evaporation 

because of the climate change we are talking about. 

Mr. SOMACH. Yes. And I should have mentioned that among the 

Phase 8 projects, in fact one that the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District is, is to utilize the area around Stony Creek in the north as 

an injection and replenishment area, where we actually take available storage and we put water back into the ground and use it—

again, in conjunction with all the other things I have talked about. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But has it been evaluated or have several 

areas been evaluated to be able to identify them at the time when 

you have excess water that can be stored and later maybe sold to 

Southern California because you have that water that you do not 

have need of? 

Mr. WALTHALL. If I could add just a little bit. Kern County Water 

Agency, actually, has been very aggressive in exactly that, actually. 

The Kern Water Bank, for example, is one of our larger projects, 

but within the Kern County area, over a million acre-feet of 

groundwater storage. That storage has very broad benefits. For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

stores a significant amount of water, over 400,00 acre-feet in Kern 

County groundwater basins. We have provided storage space to the 

Santa Clara Valley area— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, I understand you have projects, but is 

there anybody looking at adding to— 

Mr. WALTHALL. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. —finding additional aquifers or identifying 

those areas that might have contamination because of fertilizers 

and pesticides, which we found very, very heavily affected our San 

Gabriel Valley area, that we have had multimillion, about $95 million worth of cleanup, and how that—because it was explained to 

me that the top layer is contaminated and then the aquifers are 

below that. Well, how do we—we have the water, ladies and gentlemen. We just need to use it better. We need to be able to clean it, 

we need to be able to move it around so everybody has a win-win 

situation instead of fighting over what projects, the costs of the 

projects, and—you know the old adage, Whiskey is for drinking, 

water is for fighting. 

Questions? Answers? I get very frustrated listening to the different dialog, because the effect—the ecosystem, environmentalists, 

we need to protect, and the farmers want, and the others have 

shortages, and there is contaminated that prevents us from actually pulling water to be able to meet the needs of the people, especially in heavily populated areas. We have no other alternative, 

OK? We will have to go to bottled water. That is quite an issue. 

So you understand my frustration. 

Mr. WALTHALL. Certainly. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Nunes? 

Mr. NUNES. I would just like to maybe have each of the panelists 

offer a very short, brief answer to the question of if we don’t create 

new yield in the next 15 to 20 years, your specific area that you 

84

folks represent, where will you get the water from? Why don’t we 

just start on the left—my left? 

Mr. SOMACH. Well, if we don’t create new yield, folks will be coming and attempting to take water away from the folks I represent. 

And so we see additional yield as absolutely essential in order to 

maximize and to maintain the kind of stability and reliability that 

we need to continue to operate in the northern part of the State. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. 

Mr. WALTHALL. In our area, we already invest heavily in water 

conservation and recycling and all of those kinds of things. They 

are not sufficient. And in your scenario, where would we get the 

water? We wouldn’t. It would be a deterioration in quality of life. 

Ms. MORALEZ. In the San Joaquin Valley, which is part of the 

area he is talking about, absolutely, there is no real solution. The 

only solution is going to be additional storage. There is no question 

about it, no matter how we look at it. What water is available right 

now, as it is, it is difficult to provide the contracts that are on the 

records right now. The population explosion is happening. We can’t 

stop that. The business expansion is occurring. The folks from San 

Francisco and Los Angeles are moving next to our backyard. So realistically speaking, we don’t have any other resource. And I am 

sure we can look everywhere. We do have the snow, we have the 

meltdown, we have all those beautiful resources, but we have to 

find a way to store it. And the only way to store it is additional 

storage. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. 

Mr. OSANN. There are a variety of ways to increase the yield of 

the system, ranging from water use efficiency and moist water reclamation and reuse to surface water storage and groundwater storage. And the CALFED Record of Decision is the path for exploring 

and implementing an optimal mix of all of those measures. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. 

Mr. ZLOTNICK. I would answer it this way, Congressman, for my 

colleagues are here. If we don’t get the yield, the luxury of doing 

what we do for the environment is probably going to be much 

tougher to sell to the public, first of all. And second of all, for our 

area, we will have to invest in much more expensive technologies. 

And Brent, I think, hit it on the head when he said it is a quality 

of life issue, which is what we as elected officials are charged to 

try to protect and improve for our constituents. And then ultimately this will get to, for your area that serves not only California 

but the Nation, we are really talking about agricultural policy as 

well. You are not going to be able to do desal for crops. And so I 

think that is part of the mix that we get into here that is sort of 

left off the table a little bit, but hovers through the issue. 

And so in answer directly to your question, we would find a way 

to pay what we would need to pay to maintain some quality of life, 

but we have the luxury of that in our community. Not every community does. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. Thank you to the panel also, for your 

testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And I want to thank this panel. It has 

been a very interesting hearing today. I know it has been a long 

85

day for all of you. It is going to be a longer day for us, if that 

makes you feel any better—and tomorrow, too, by the way. 

But this is important. As Californians, we understand the difficulties that we operate under in our State, and water is right on 

top of the list. And we are attempting in this legislation to attempt 

to not just reclaim water and to conserve water and to convey 

water, but to store water and to get additional yield for additional 

needs in our State. 

You know, I know everybody is sick of hearing me say this, but 

you remember that movie ‘‘Field of Dreams’’—build it and they will 

come. Well, we have a saying up here, Don’t build it and they will 

come anyway. So that is why we are here, to do something positive 

and to be for something rather than against everything. And that 

is what we are going to do with this legislation. 

So thank you very much. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[A statement submitted for the record by Don Marciochi, General 

Manager, Grassland Water District, follows:]

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 

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), 

86

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). 

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. 

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 

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 

87

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. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Ben Movahed, President, 

American Membrane Technology Association, follows:]

88

[NOTE: Additional letters of support for H.R. 2828 have been 

retained in the Committee’s official files.]

Æ


88533.004