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

73-637 PS 2002

MANAGEMENT OF THE

COLORADO RIVER

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

July 9, 2001 in Salt Lake City, Utah

Serial No. 107-46

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

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

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

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on July 9, 2001 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 3

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

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah ............................................................................................................... 4

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

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 6

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

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

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

Statement of Witnesses:

Anderson, D. Larry, Director, Utah Division of Water Resources, and

Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission .......................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Davidson, Thomas J., Wyoming Commissioner, Upper Colorado River

Commission, and Deputy Attorney General, Wyoming Attorney

General’s Office ............................................................................................. 53

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55

Dishlip, Herb, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Water

Resources ....................................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Holsinger, Kent, Assistant Director, Colorado Department of Natural

Resources ....................................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Jones, Jeanine, Drought Preparedness Manager, California Department

of Water Resources ....................................................................................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Mulroy, Patricia, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority .... 37

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

Mutz, Philip B., Upper Colorado River Commissioner, State of

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 41

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

Additional materials supplied:

Graff, Thomas J., Regional Director, Environmental Defense, Letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Grace Napolitano ....................... 81

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON

MANAGEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER

Monday, July 9, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Resources

Salt Lake City, Utah

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at the Department of Natural Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake

City, Utah, Hon. James V. Hansen (Chairman of the Committee)

presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES HANSEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We welcome you here this morning to the Committee of Natural Resources of the U.S. House of

Representatives. I’m the Chairman of the Committee, Jim Hansen.

Grace Napolitano is from California, who is here on my left. Ken

Calvert is the Chairman of the Subcommittee of Water and Power,

and is from California. Seated next to him is Chris Cannon from

the state of Utah in the Third District. We expect any moment to

have Jim Gibbons of the state of Nevada. And I understand that

these mikes work differently than they do in the House of Representatives. Jim Gibbons should walk in any minute from the

state of Nevada.And so, because we believe in starting on time,

we’re going to go ahead. And I’ll have some opening remarks and

I’ll turn to my colleagues.

This field hearing will explore the broad issues of the management of the Colorado River in the coming decades from the perspective of the Upper and Lower Colorado Basin states. Today’s

witnesses represent each of these states, will provide insight to the

Committee of the various and often contentious issues that we

must grapple with in the coming years.

In light of the legislation recently introduced which authorized

the massive CALFED water projects, it is appropriate that we also

explore the future management of the Colorado River and California’s relationship with other Basin states as well.

We are all familiar with the contentious issues of the Colorado

River, ranging from the operation of the Federal dams to the protection of endangered species, to Indian water rights, to the marketing of water between states and water users. While each of

these issues have been the subject of numerous hearings, we will

likely only be able to touch on these topics today. But as we discuss

2

the water needs of California and other states, we should strive to

reach a reasonable balance between the water users, recreationists,

and environmental concerns.

Unfortunately, some have already made up their minds to take

an unreasonable and unbending position that is neither realistic

nor conducive to public discourse. And so I think we should be very

careful as we look at this; we would hope that people would have

an open mind, that they would see that the southwest part of

America is predicated on the Colorado River drainage. And there

are a lot of states involved in this, and we would appreciate it if

people, as this thing unfolds, would work on that.

Some people are of the opinion that we should drain Lake Powell. I think you might as well forget that. I don’t think that will

ever occur, but who knows. And that we have to realize if we find

ourselves without the water and power that comes out of Lake

Powell right now, we would be in very tough shape.

Some who advocate preaching recycling and conservation often

refuse to accept the fact that the Colorado water and its tributaries

are the cleanest source of energy in the West. All sources of energy

need a fuel; in this case fuel is water. The Colorado River water

is used and reused nearly a half dozen times between its headwaters and the delta through a series of highly efficient dams. Unfortunately, no one ever seems to talk about that.

I would challenge anyone to come up with an alternative source

of power that uses the same fuel four or six times over, providing

power to literally millions of homes and businesses, with zero

greenhouse gas emissions. You just simply can’t. Simply put, hydropower is among the most environmentally friendly sources of

water we have, and we should not overlook that fact as we discuss

the management of the Colorado River.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that someday some well- meaning

and naive Member of Congress from the East, eager to curry favor

with the green lobby, will introduce legislation to decommission

Glen Canyon Dam. I don’t think that day is too far away. And as

long as I’m Chairman of the Committee, don’t count on it. At that

time it will be our responsibility as Members of the Committee to

educate that person to the reality of the role that water plays in

the West.

In light of this drain-it movement under way, I believe that

Members of this Committee should also be concerned with the discussion that will take place between the United States and Mexico

in September regarding the Colorado River delta. There is significant pressure coming from these same environmental groups to reallocate substantial amounts of water to restore the Colorado River

delta. This will undoubtedly have immediate and long-term ramifications on all the basin states. The secretary should be very careful not to enter into agreements without the consultation and

agreement of the states.

I don’t know if the witnesses are prepared to discuss this issue

today. But the Committee should certainly be prepared to provide

the Secretary with guidance if necessary. And as many you of folks

know, what the secretaries do can be overturned by legislation, and

is done on a very regular basis, whether it’s the Defense DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:17 Jun 14, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 73637.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
3

ment or the resources somewhere else, and in the last 8 years we

spent an awful lot of time doing it.

I want to thank Chairman Calvert for all the work that he has

done on these issues. Ken has just been a Godsend to us on the

Committee, and he’s working here with Josh Johnson, who’s holding this button down so I can talk to you folks. Josh has served

on my personal staff for a while, he’s been over on Energy and

Water, and now is Chief of Staff of this Subcommittee. Ken has devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy over the recent

months in working for solutions to address California’s long-term

water and energy needs.

I also want to thank the other Members of the Committee who

have arranged their schedules and travel plans to be here today.

Finally, I want to extend the Committee’s appreciation to the

Utah Department of Natural Resources and Director Kathleen

Clark for hosting today’s hearing. They have been most accommodating in making arrangement for this hearing in such short notice.

Now it is my pleasure to hear from the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert of California, and then the gentlelady from

California, the gentleman from Utah, and the gentleman from Nevada.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, we

hear a lot about exports of water from the Colorado River to California. I was happy when I came here today that—relieved that

we’re importing water here to Utah from California. So I just wanted you to know that it’s not just a one-way street, you know, so.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you’ve stolen our water fair and square.

Mr. CALVERT. Recently I’ve been doing a series of field hearings

in my home state of California, discussing issues related to water

supply, quality, and reliability. And throughout these hearings I’ve

learned that California’s water security is directly tied to water security in the entire western United States.

Water issues cross borders here in the West like the meandering

river. One issue that continually comes before my Subcommittee,

particularly when it comes to California’s water security, is the

management and operations of the Colorado River. As each of you

know, this river has been a focal point of water for all of us in the

West for many decades, and promises to continue to be.

We speak of the collective body of law, how to regulate Colorado

River water in the West as the Law of the River. Though we’ve

made good progress defining that law, challenges certainly continue. The environment, the possibility of a long-term drought,

California’s 4.4 Plan, and the simple lack of enough water will be

challenges in the future. So I certainly look forward to today’s

hearing and each state’s perspective on issues surrounding the

management and operations of the Colorado River.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being the host in such a delightful location here in the state of Utah. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

4

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Water and Power

Recently, I have been doing a series of field hearings in my home state of

California’discussing issues related to water supply, quality and reliability.

Throughout these hearings, I have learned that California’s water security is directly tied to water security in the entire Western United States. Water issues cross

boarders here in the West, like a meandering River. One issue that continually

comes before my Subcommittee, particularly when it comes to California’s water security, is the management and operations of the Colorado River. As each of you

know, this river has been a focal point of water for all of us in the West for many

decades, and promises to continue to be. We speak of the collective body of law

about how to regulate Colorado River water in the West as the ‘‘Law of the River.’’ While we have made good progress defining that law, challenges certainly continue.

The environment, the possibility of a long term drought, the California 4.4 Plan and

the simple lack of enough water will be challenges in the future.

I look forward today to hear each State’s perspective on issues surrounding the

management and operations of the Colorado River.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Miss Napolitano?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE NAPOLITANO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to be here. And mine is very short and sweet. I have been involved with the Colorado River for a number of years simply because I was privy to a lot of the information at the state level. And

essentially I have vested interests in the fact that the Colorado

River provides good, quality water for the whole basin in my area.

And it isn’t just for my constituents that I’m concerned for the future of that delivery of that water, but also for my children and my

grandchildren and their grandchildren.

I think all of us need to understand that no matter what we decide, what happens in the decades to come is something that we

need to be concerned about, because things are changing. Not only

do we not have what—we go through the cycles of drought all

through this western area, and I think if we work together we can

come to solutions that are going to be beneficial to all of the western states. It is my hope that we will continue to work together,

as we did on getting the Colorado River Moab site addressed that

had been sitting for a long time.

I was asked repeatedly, why do you have an interest? Well, we

do drink the Colorado water, and so the interest has to be there

for all of us. And I think working together we can come to some

solution. I’m glad I’m here to listen to what is said so that we can

then move forward and begin the work that needs to be done.

Thank you, sir, thank you, my colleagues.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from

Utah, Mr. Cannon.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. Geez, being in Congress would be a lot more

pleasant if we could have all of our meetings out here. Or at home,

for those from other states. I’d also like to thank the gentlelady

from California, Ms. Napolitano, for her interest in this subject

5

over the long- term. We’ve worked closely together on moving the

tailings out of the Moab area and off the Colorado River. I know

many people downstream have a concern about that.

I’m pleased to have this opportunity to examine the management

of the Colorado River. We who live in the arid West know just how

critical water supply issues are. The Resources Committee and the

Colorado River managers are faced with dual tasks. We live in an

era where we’re more sensitive to environmental effects or actions,

and on the other hand, we must ensure an adequate supply of

water for a burgeoning population.

A study by the University of Colorado’s Center for the American

West projects that 48 million more people will be added to the 11

Western states by 2050. Utah alone will grow by about 59 percent,

to reach about 3.6 million people, according to these projections,

and therefore must adopt a forward-looking approach to water

management to accommodate this growth. In other words, the

Colorado River will play a key role in providing the water we need;

both the Upper and Lower Basin states must find ways to make

better use of the water that we have.

I’m pleased to be working on a bill to, among other things, encourage wastewater reuse in the Central Utah Project. This kind

of innovative management applied to the Colorado River is the only

way to ensure that we have the water necessary to sustain our

Western population.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. They

have a chance to offer us information that we need to make good

policy decisions and ensure the preservation of the Colorado River,

while continuing to provide for the needs of the generations to

come.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Utah

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. Being in Congress

would be all the more enjoyable if we could always stay in the beautiful state of

Utah to get our work done.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to examine management of the Colorado

River. We who live in the arid West know just how critical water supply issues are.

The Resources Committee and Colorado River managers are faced with dual tasks.

We live in an era where we are more sensitive to the environmental efforts of our

actions. ON the other hand, we must ensure an adequate supply of water for our

burgeoning population. A study by the University of Colorado’s Center of the American West projects that 48 million more people will be add3ed to the 11 Western

states by 2050. Utah alone will grow by 59% to almost 3.6 million people. We must

adopt a forward-looking approach to water management if we are to accommodate

this growth.

Management of the Colorado River will play a key role in providing the water we

need. Both the upper and lower basin states must find ways to make better use of

the water that we have. I am pleased to be working on a bill to, among other things,

encourage wastewater reuse in the Central Utah Project. This kind of innovative

management applied to the Colorado River is the only way to ensure that we have

the water necessary to sustain our western population.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. They are the true experts who can offer us the information that we need to make good policy decisions

and ensure the preservation of the Colorado River, while continuing to provide for

the needs of the generations to come.

6

The CHAIRMAN. Gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM GIBBONS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And as a

Representative from Nevada whose state contains the southern

part of the Colorado River Basin in that area, I’m honored and

pleased to be here. Thank you for the invitation to invite us to attend.

And let me say that I do believe that the future of the Colorado

River is not only more secure, but it’s much brighter, through hearings that we’re having here today and through the leadership of

not only you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Calvert as well, but I think

because of the groups and the interests that everyone is showing

in now improving the Colorado River as we have here today.

As for my good colleague and friend, Mr. Cannon from Utah, I

am in complete agreement with him that we should move at least

to Salina, Kansas, the capital of the United States; it would make

the commute a whole lot easier. And I do appreciate the fact to be

here.

Once again, thank you for the invitation and your leadership on

this issue.

The CHAIRMAN.All of the statements will be included in their entirety in the record. And if people want to abbreviate, by all means,

please do it.

The CHAIRMAN. For today’s hearing, we just have one panel, but

we’ve structured it that way. We want to hear from you folks, what

you want to say, what you feel strong about.

And normally we limit you to 5 minutes. We purposely did not

bring our clock that cuts you off, but we would appreciate it if you

would just kind of speak from the heart. If you want to read your

statement, that’s up to you. But following that, I will turn to Members of the panel here to ask you all the tough questions.

So this is the order they tell me we’re supposed to do this in. Mr.

D. Larry Young? Larry Anderson. Put my glasses on to get this

straight, Larry. Director of Utah Division of Water Resources; Mr.

Herb Dishlip, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources; Mrs. Jeanine Jones, Drought Preparedness Manager, California Department of Water Resources; Mr. Kent Holsinger, is that

correct?

Mr. HOLSINGER. Holsinger.

The CHAIRMAN. Close enough. Assistant Director, Colorado

Department of Natural Resources; Miss Patricia Mulroy, General

Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Mr. Phillip Mutz,

Upper Colorado River Commissioner, State of New Mexico; and Mr.

Thomas J. Davidson, the Governor’s Representative, Wyoming

Attorney General’s Office. We’d be happy to take you in that order.

Larry, if you want to start, you’re on.

STATEMENT OF D. LARRY ANDERSON, DIRECTOR,

UTAH DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much. I don’t know if I have to

touch this, or maybe it doesn’t work. Anyway—

7

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got power? Can everybody hear Mr.

Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. Congressman Hansen and Members of Congress,

those from the Resources Committee, I want to thank you for the

opportunity to testify today on behalf of the states—State of Utah

concerning management of the Colorado River. I am Larry Anderson, the Director of the Utah Division of Water Resources, Utah

Interstate Streams Commissioner, and Governor Leavitt’s representative on Colorado River water issues.

From the dawn of recorded history down to our time, men have

prayed and fought for the water that makes soil productive and

sustains life. If an area receives less than 20 inches of precipitation

annually, irrigation is necessary.

As you can see from the map over here that I brought in showing

the annual precipitation, the western United States, and particularly the Colorado River Basin, there in those nice red— The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to bring that out so the rest of the

folks here in the audience can see it?

Mr. ANDERSON. Those nice red and orange colors there, the hot

ones show that the western United States, particularly the

Colorado River basin, is in what I would call the great American

desert. We receive within the Colorado River basin about 14 inches

of precipitation annually, and you can see as you move east how

that—colors get a lot calmer and cooler as you move there, and see

that the precipitation on the East Coast varies from about 30

inches up to as much a 100 inches. So we truly do live in the great

American desert.

Because of the critical role of water in the arid West, the

Colorado River has been the subject of extensive negotiations and

litigation. This has resulted in the development of a complex set of

Federal and state laws, compacts, court decisions, treaties, and

other agreements, collectively known as a Law of the River. The

principal documents forming the Law of the River again are shown

over here on this poster.

While some may want you to believe that the Law is archaic and

unresponsive to current problems, you will note that the list of

items comprising the Law of the River continues to grow, showing

a dynamic and static law—and not a static law, with the most recent additional item added to the Law of the River being the Interim Surplus Guidelines, which were added in January of this

year.

In the mid-1990’s, the Colorado River Basin states began discussions on the development of a plan to encourage California to implement measures to reduce its use of Colorado River water from

5.2 million acre-feet annually back to its allocated amount of 4.4

million acre-feet.

With the encouragement of the Secretary of Interior, the basin

states were able to reach a consensus agreement of what we call

Interim Surplus Guidelines. The Secretary of Interior adopted

those guidelines in January of this year, and issued a record of decision that was acceptable to all of the basin states.

The advantage of the Interim Surplus Guidelines is it gives California water users more certainty on when and how surpluses will

be determined for the next 15 years. The advantage to the other

8

six basin states is that it requires California to systematically

ratchet down its use of Colorado River water, and by the year 2016,

California has committed to live within its Compact allocation of

4.4 million acre-feet.

A document that goes hand in hand with the Interim Surplus

Guidelines is the California 4.4 Plan. This plan outlines the measures California water users will implement to achieve the conservation benchmarks outlined by the record of the decision. We support

and fully expect California to finalize the plan, their 4.4 Plan, by

December of 2002.

Because a continuation of the Interim Guidelines is dependent

upon California’s being successful. We encourage Congress and all

Federal agencies to support and assist California wherever necessary in completing all of the agreements that they must sign

within the state of California and all the environmental regulations

that they must comply with. And if necessary, expedite any Federal

reviews required to help California be successful in their plan.

In recent years Federal legislation has been introduced to protect

the Salton Sea ecosystem. I am concerned that such an effort may

conflict with the California 4.4 Plan. Remind you that the Salton

Sea is a man-made lake created in the 1900’s by the failure of a

canal carrying Colorado River water to irrigators in the Imperial

Valley, and the Salton Sea is maintained today by agricultural inefficiency and runoff. Any efforts to guarantee additional flows to

the Salton Sea could conflict with conservation efforts to transfer

agricultural water to M&I uses as contemplated in the California

4.4 Plan and in the Interim Surplus Guidelines.

Environmental groups have recently expressed a concern over

the Colorado River delta ecosystem in Mexico. The Federal Governments of both the United States and Mexico have agreed to meet

to discuss delta concerns and issues, and have scheduled a joint

educational symposium in Mexicali, Mexico on September 11th and

12th. The basin states request that the U.S. Government invite us

to be involved in the development of any solutions to the problems

in the delta.

I don’t have to remind this group that the Colorado River is totally appropriated, the water has been allocated to the basin states

and to the country of Mexico in the use of water. Any additional

water will have to be—will have to come from one of those sources.

Even though there are many unresolved issues facing the

Colorado River water users, the basin states are trying to work cooperatively with the Federal Government, Indian tribes, and nongovernment organizations to resolve them. While the process is not

easy, history tells us that if those involved exercise trust and comity among themselves, acceptable solutions are likely to be found.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

Statement of D. Larry Anderson, Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado

River Commission, and Director, Utah Division of Water Resources

The Colorado River falls more than 12,000 feet as it flows from the Rocky Mountains to its outlet in the Gulf of California. The river has a huge drainage basin

that covers over 244,000 square miles. The seven Colorado River Basin states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) comprise about

one-twelfth of the area of the continental United States. Despite the size of the waVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:17 Jun 14, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73637.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
9

tershed, the Colorado River ranks only sixth among the nation=s rivers in volume

of flow, with an average annual undepleted flow in excess of 17.5 million acre-feet

(MAF) (15 MAF at Lee Ferry, the compact division point). Demands on the Colorado

River are not limited to needs within the basin. In fact, more water is exported from

the basin than from any other river in the country. The river provides municipal

and industrial water for more than 24 million people living in the major metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, and hundreds

of other communities in the seven states. It also provides irrigation water to about

2.0 million acres of land. The river has over 60 MAF of storage capacity and 4,000

megawatts of hydroelectric generating capacity. The river is often described as the

most regulated river in the world. Considering its importance to the basin states,

Native American Indian Tribes and Mexico, the agreements that have been reached

to divide the rivers water must be considered of the utmost importance.

Over half of the state of Utah is located in the Colorado River Basin, and the river

is an important economic, recreational, and environmental resource for the citizens

of the state. A significant portion of Utah=s economy revolves around and is supported by the use of the Colorado River and its tributaries for power generation, irrigation, and tourism as well as a water supply for Utah=s growing population.

Thus, Utah is vitally concerned with the management of the Colorado River in the

21st Century.

THE LAW OF THE RIVER

Because of the critical role of water in the arid west, the Colorado River has been

the subject of extensive negotiations and litigation. This has resulted in the development of a complex set of federal laws, compacts, court decisions, treaties, state laws

and other agreements collectively known as ‘‘The Law of the River.’’ The principal

documents forming ‘‘The Law of the River’’ include:

• The Colorado River Compact of 1922;

• The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928;

• The Mexican Treaty of 1944;

• The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948;

• The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956;

• The U.S. Supreme Court’s Arizona v. California decision and decree of 1963;

• The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968;

• Criteria for Coordinated Long–Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs of

1970;

• Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission of 1973;

• The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974;

• The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992;

• Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria of 2001

In addition to these documents, several other federal and state laws impact use

of the river. Some are California=s Self Limitation Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act.

While some groups may have you believe ‘‘The Law of the River’’ is archaic and

unresponsive to current problems, it should be pointed out, as evidenced by the preceding information that ‘‘The Law of the River,’’ has evolved over time and adapted

to various needs and situations. The key to this process has been the comity and

respect the participants have shown each other while also ensuring the newer elements are consistent with and conform to the principals embodied in the previously

existing compacts, laws, treaties, and court decisions.

INTERIM SURPLUS GUIDELINES

One of the most important issues in the Colorado River Basin today is the increasing municipal and industrial demands in the Lower Division States of Arizona,

California, and Nevada versus available water supply as allocated by ‘‘The Law of

the River.’’ Unless and until the Lower Division States take the necessary steps to

live within their basic entitlement of 7.5 MAF per year, Utah=s ability to continue

to develop and use its Upper Basin allocation could be impaired. With the goal in

mind of protecting Utah=s future development and use of Colorado River Water,

Utah joined with the other six Basin states in responding to a call from the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan by which the short term needs of the Lower

Division States could be met during a transition period while the Lower Division

States, specifically California, develop and implement a plan to limit use of Colorado

River water to the amount allowed under ‘‘The Law of the River.’’

10

The result of this process in essence is the ‘‘Colorado River Interim Surplus

Guidelines’’ as adopted in the Secretary of the Interior=s Record of Decision (ROD)

dated January of 2001.

The Surplus Guidelines allow the Secretary to provide water to meet municipal

and industrial (M&I) uses in the Lower Basin, particularly in California, during an

interim period 2001- 2016 when Colorado River reservoirs are projected to be relatively full. Water users in California have been using approximately 5.2 MAF annually over the past 20 years, 800,000 acre-feet more each year than their compact

allocation. Interim surplus guidelines allow California 15 years to implement conservation programs to reduce their demand for Colorado River water by 800,000 AF

annually. During this 15-year time frame, the basin states have agreed to give California a greater assurance than hydrology may afford that surpluses will be declared and M&I water demands met. These criteria, however, are structured in such

a way as to also provide protection to the other basin states against the potential

impacts of dry hydrology in the next 15 years. This protection will reduce the allowable California M&I water demands that can be met by surpluses as the reservoirs

are lowered because of drought. Utah strongly supports the consensus reached by

the seven Colorado River Basin states and requests the federal government and Secretary of the Interior continue to follow through on the commitments of all parties

and be willing to enforce the provisions of the Interim Surplus Criteria Guidelines

outlined in the ROD if that is necessary to assure that certain time sensitive bench

marks are met. Utah believes such monitoring and, if necessary, enforcement is critical to protecting the rights of the Upper Division states (Colorado, New Mexico,

Utah and Wyoming) and the water allocated to them under ‘‘The Law of the River.’’

CALIFORNIA 4.4 PLAN

Of great interest and concern to all the Colorado River Basin states is the success

of the California 4.4 Plan (4.4 Plan), which is an integral part of the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD. This plan outlines the necessary steps California water users

must take to meet the requirements of the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD. Utah

supports California=s development of the 4.4 plan and fully expects this plan to be

finalized and in place by December of 2002 with all necessary agreements and compliance documents executed. While we have some concern over the conflicts the 4.4

plan has generated in California, we fully anticipate and expect the water users in

California to solve their problems as the viability of the ‘‘Interim Surplus Guidelines’’ hangs in the balance. Similarly, there are some agreements which involve

parties in Arizona and Nevada along with parties in California that need to be completed. Utah encourages Congress and federal agencies to provide support for and

facilitate these agreements wherever appropriate, and if necessary, expedite any required federal review processes.

SALTON SEA

Somewhat related to the 4.4 Plan are current federal efforts to protect/restore the

Salton Sea. Some of the proposals being considered may be at odds with the 4.4

Plan. While the Salton Sea has become an important wildlife habitat, it should also

be recognized that the Salton Sea is a manmade habitat dependent upon agricultural inefficiency and runoff. Any water dedicated for use in the Salton Sea will

have to come from existing water uses in the area, which may conflict with the

transfer of agricultural water to municipal use as contemplated in the 4.4 Plan and

the benchmarks in the ROD. Given the relationship between the Salton Sea and

Colorado River water use under the 4.4 plan, the impacts of both efforts should be

carefully evaluated.

COLORADO RIVER DELTA

The Colorado River is an international resource. Recently several environmental

organizations have raised concerns over the Colorado River Delta ecosystem in Mexico, and the Mexican government has asked the United States to enter into a dialog

concerning the restoration and protection of the Colorado River Delta. Utah expects

the federal government will continue to consult with the seven Colorado River Basin

states concerning any and all issues related to Colorado River flows to Mexico. At

the present time environmental groups, research institutions, the Basin states, and

the federal governments of both the United States and Mexico are looking for options to find ways to protect and restore the Colorado River Delta in Mexico. A joint,

two-country educational symposium is currently scheduled to be held in Mexicalli,

Mexico on September 11 and 12 to discuss what is known about the Delta today.

As international issues are considered, the federal government and Congress

should recognize that the Colorado River is fully allocated and used. Thus, any

11

water dedicated to the Delta will have to be taken from current water users and

existing allocations. Also, once water has been delivered to the international boundary, the United States can do nothing about how the water is used in Mexico. The

sovereign right of Mexico to control waters within Mexico is the same right the

United States and the Colorado River Basin states have within their respective

boundaries. Further any changes in Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico will

have to take into account not only the traditional ‘‘Law of the River,’’ but specifically

state water rights.

FUTURE OF GLEN CANYON DAM AND LAKE POWELL

In connection with the Colorado River Delta discussions, we have begun to hear

the first inkling of a supposed connection between the operation of Glen Canyon

Dam, and the well-being of the Colorado River Delta downstream. The erroneous

theory seems to be that if the dam were decommissioned, the Delta would thrive.

Utah opposes this and other unwise efforts to drain Lake Powell. Lake Powell is

an integral component of the management and operation of the Colorado River, is

essential to the Upper Basin states= continued effort to implement their responsibilities under ‘‘The Law of the River,’’ and provides uncounted recreation, flood control,

power generations and other benefits. The Utah Legislature recently passed a resolution (copy attached) opposing the draining of Lake Powell. Utah, and, we believe,

other Colorado River Basin states steadfastly oppose any efforts to decommission

Glen Canyon Dam or drain Lake Powell. As stated in a Salt Lake Tribune editorial,

it is ‘‘Dam Foolishness.’’

UPPER COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISHES RECOVERY PROGRAM

Utah=s development of its remaining allocation of Colorado River Water is dependent upon compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA); particularly

treatment of the four listed Colorado River fishes (Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback

Chub, Razorback Sucker, and the Bonytail). To comply with the ESA, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), the United

States Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, and Environmental Defense Fund entered into a cooperative agreement in 1988 to recover

these species. Much research has been completed during the last 12 years to help

us learn more about these fish. Today participants in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program (Recovery Program) have developed a Recovery

Implementation Program and a Recovery Action Plan that will, to the best knowledge of the scientists involved, recover these fishes while still allowing water use

and development in the Upper Colorado River Basin. With the help and support of

Chairman Hansen and this Committee, long term funding authorization has been

obtained from Congress, along with a commitment by the states to cost-share at

substantial levels. Utah asks that federal appropriations for this purpose continue.

Revised recovery goals are currently undergoing review by the USF&WS and will

be published this fall. Comparison of the preliminary drafts of the recovery goals

with current population estimates indicate the Colorado Pikeminnow and the

Humpback Chub are recovering to the point that down-listing is a distinct possibility in the near future if population trends continue. Utah is very supportive of

the program and has committed $3.4 million over the next five years for capital construction of facilities for fish recovery. This is in addition to an ongoing commitment

of resources for research, monitoring, and maintenance. The need for consensus in

decision-making is an important factor in the success of the Recovery Program. The

unity of purpose and trust among the participants along with a manageable committee size (currently nine members) helps the Implementation Committee make decisions and set policy that allows the program to succeed. Utah would also like to

commend the federal agency participants and the environmental organization members of the Recovery Program for their willingness to discuss issues and work out

solutions.

MULTI SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Fundamental to the original intent of the Recovery Program Cooperative Agreement was the implicit understanding that the listed fishes could be recovered, downlisted, and eventually de-listed in the Upper Basin independent of the Lower

Colorado River Basin status of the fish.

Utah supports the Multi–Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in the Lower

Colorado River Basin. We note, however, that the size and scope of the MSCP both

in terms of issues and species to be addressed, as well as the shear number of participants will make the success a difficult challenge, because consensus and unity

of purpose and action becomes exponentially greater as the number of participants

12

and issues increase. Thus, Utah believes it is imperative that recovery, down-listing,

and de-listing of currently-listed species in the Upper Basin not be tied in any direct

or indirect way to the status of the fishes in the Lower Basin.

GLEN CANYON ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Grand Canyon Protection Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to operate

Glen Canyon Dam to enhance the downstream resources along the river through the

Grand Canyon while still meeting the purposes for which the dam was built. To reduce downstream impacts to fisheries and habitat, one of the changes made was to

modify the hydroelectric power plant operation from a peaking power facility to a

partial peaking power facility.

There is a growing concern over the objectives and goals of the Glen Canyon

Adaptive Management Program principally because many participants fail to recognize this program is constrained by ‘‘The Law of the River.’’ The Adaptive Management Workgroup, established by the Grand Canyon Protection Act, is an advisory

group to the Secretary of the Interior and thus has no formal decision responsibility,

a fact sometimes ignored by some members of the group.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while philosophical musings and an emotional desire to return to

simpler times have a powerful appeal, we as a society must acknowledge that our

standard of living is, in large measure, based on changes we have wrought to our

natural environment, including rivers such as the Colorado. Changes to river operations will have to be based on facts established using sound science and need to

take into account the social and economic costs and benefits derived from current

operations. Congress and the Administration need to recognize that the constraints

of ‘‘The Law of the River’’ have been carefully and painfully established by legislation, negotiation, and litigation over a period of many years. Even though there are

many unresolved issues facing the Colorado River water users, the basin states are

trying to work cooperatively with the federal government, Indian tribes, and nongovernmental organizations to resolve them. While the process is not easy, history

tells us if those involved continue to exercise comity, acceptable solutions are likely

to be found to most problems.

{Attachments to Mr. Anderson’s statement follow:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Dishlip?

STATEMENT OF HERB DISHLIP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Mr. DISHLIP. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of Governor Hull, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to

be here today to address Colorado River issues to the 21st century

as it relates to the state of Arizona.

I’m Herb Dishlip. I’m Assistant Director for the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Within the Arizona state government,

the Department of Water Resources is the agency that is responsible for policy development and coordination of activities with regard to the Colorado River. Within Arizona, the Colorado River is

probably our most important renewable water resource.

Our current use of water averages about six and a half million

acre-feet a year. We’re a growing state. One of our biggest challenges is to manage the water supply, to accommodate growth, and

still be able to live within our means. The 2.8 million acre-feet of

entitlement that we have for the Colorado River between the Upper

and Lower Basins represents about half of our water supply. Especially when you consider the fact that we are able to use water

more than one time, use the water, generate return flows, and recycle that same water supply more than one time. So it is obviously

the critical renewable water resource.

By comparison, our local rivers generate about 1.5 million acrefeet, and the balance of our water supply comes from groundwater.

And a great deal of that groundwater supply has been chronically

mined, resulting in lowering of water tables over the last 60 years.

Within our state, our biggest challenge is to reverse the overdraft

situation and become much more reliant upon a renewable and reliable supply such as the Colorado River. In large part because of

the importance of the Colorado River and the allocation of that

river to our state, Arizona’s had a long history of being very cautious and somewhat contentious with regard to the Colorado River

supplies.

Back when they did the first issue on the Law of the River in

1922, our state was only 10 years old; we’d become a state in 1912.

And so one of the very first major political issues faced by our leadership was the Colorado River and the formation of the Colorado

River Compact. And while we participated in the negotiation of the

Compact, when they brought that Compact back to our state legislature, our state legislature refused to ratify it; we were the holdout. And so that didn’t make them very popular, but it was a message really that in Arizona, when it comes to the Colorado River,

people take it very, very seriously.

Ultimately, our holdout didn’t work; the Compact was ratified

without our signature, and Hoover Dam was allowed to be built

and development of the river supply moved forward.

Finally, in 1944, the state realized being recalcitrant wasn’t getting anywhere, and they did ratify the Compact and entered into

a contract to utilize our Lower Basin supply of 2.8 million acre-feet.

Once they did that, they got fairly serious about putting that water

to use.

20

And probably the cornerstone of the ability to put that water to

use was the development of a major diversion project from the river

to bring it into the central basins in the Phoenix and Tucson area

called the Central Arizona Project. But development of the Central

Arizona Project was very long, it was hard-fought, it ended up in

having to go to the Supreme Court for long years of litigation in

the Arizona versus California case. And coming out of that case,

there finally was a decision, and finally in 1968 it did lead to the

authorization and beginning of construction of the Central Arizona

Project. But again, I think it left kind of a feeling of a siege mentality within our state historically; that in order to get Colorado

River supplies put to use, we were going to have to fight very hard

for it and we were going to have to protect that water supply any

way we can.

With the utilization of the Central—construction of the Central

Arizona Project though, now we are fully utilizing our water supplies. And it really is a new era with regard to water and water

management in Arizona that we have now full capability to use all

2.8 million acre-feet of our Lower Basin entitlement.

Realizing that things really have turned the corner with regard

to the development and use, we really have focused our attention

now on management of the Colorado River. And that’s where, in today’s issues, the interim surplus criteria was so important.

As we look to the development of the river supply, one of the

things that are—is our greatest concern is that over the long-term

this supply is overallocated, that there is not enough water generated from the Colorado River to meet all the needs in the basin.

And one of the compromises made to get the Central Arizona

Project was that that project would take on a junior priority relative to California in particular in times of shortage. And that compromise that was made, that we accepted to take shortages, really

has had a critical factor with regard to how we’ve looked at use of

the Colorado River and trying to make sure that other users live

within their means.

Considering where we are with regard to use within our state,

we’re just building up to full utilization. The development of surplus criteria would have normally been a fairly low priority for our

state; we’re not really in need of water above the 2.8 million acrefeet on occasion, although we are trying to develop ways to take advantage of it through groundwater recharge projects. But it normally would not have been a high priority. But when California

raised the issues with regard to needing more flexible reservoir operating criteria, we did become engaged, along with the other basin

states, in a strong dialogue, seeing if ultimately we could get California to agree to reduce their overall demand, especially for municipal use of water, to get it back down to within their normal

year entitlement.

We feel that’s probably the greatest security policy that the State

of Arizona could buy, that having California living within its means

lowers the risk of shortages to Arizona considerably. So we were

willing to enter into these interim surplus arrangements.

Part of the agreement we worked out with California and Nevada on the Interim Surplus Agreement is that in many years Arizona will actually forebear its use of the 46 percent of our legal

21

entitlement to surplus water, and we will do that in deference to

the promise by California that they will be reducing their demand

over a 15-year period.

Now historically, with that background I gave you about how

contentious Arizona’s been, you would have thought that a proposal

for us to waive our rights to water would have been dead on arrival

in our legislature. But quite frankly, there is a new attitude in Arizona, much more willingness to work with the other states to have

a better management program. And I’m pleased to say that at the

end of the last legislature, both House and Senate passed a concurrent resolution, and Senator Hull signed that resolution, which

fully endorsed the interim surplus criteria and allowed the provisions of that criteria to go into place with regards to Arizona and

Arizona water use.

That’s kind of—fortunately now, that took an awful lot of time,

maybe six to 10 years of discussion and negotiation. Hopefully, that

issue is now behind us and the interim surplus criteria in place,

and we can look forward to future working together with the other

states.

A number of issues are emerging with regard to the Colorado

River. First of all, just coming off of the interim surplus criteria,

the need to reduce the 4.4 million acre-feet by California. Inherent

in that agreement is an understanding that we’re going to have to

better manage and account for the Colorado River water. We need

to know who is using water, how much, how much return flow is

generated, and are we living up to these agreements by living within our means. We definitely need to have better accounting mechanisms. And included in that determination, we need to know

whether the water that is pumped from the flood plain near the

Colorado River should be considered Colorado River water, subject

to Federal law, or should it be considered groundwater, subject to

state law. These are important decisions that have to be made,

mostly on a technical basis, but it’s critical to doing that better accounting.

We have a number of issues emerging. Arizona shares the border

with Mexico, our southern border, and in particular, we even have

a section of Arizona that has—about 26-mile section where we

share the border, that the Colorado River west of Arizona is the

Republic of Mexico. And this is in our Yuma area. And the management of water supplies in the Yuma area has long been subject to

a lot of issues, especially with regard to the salinity of the water

and how return flows are generated. And really emerging issues

have to do in large part with how are we managing the water supply that we deliver to the Republic of Mexico.

The salinity issue at the south international boundary has been

raised through the International Boundary Water Commission. We

are working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the IBWC to see

if we can find ways at certain periods of time to improve the quality of the water that is delivered at the south boundary.

Related to the issue of south boundary deliveries is the issue of

the Yuma Desalting Plant. I think the—coming out of the interim

surplus criteria was a recognition that as we manage the water

supply, what happened back in the early 1970’s under the Salinity

Control Act and the authorization of the desalting plant, which has

22

not been operated, that issue is now coming into focus, should it

be operated, shouldn’t it be operated, if it’s not operated, what alternative means can be done. The primary focus is not really so

much in most years to improve the quality of the water so much

to deliver to the Republic of Mexico, but to actually reclaim some

water and make it more usable within our entitlement, and save

water supplies in Lake Mead from being released.

One of the difficult issues with the Yuma Desalting Plant is that

in the interim period that has evolved, drainage water from the

Wellton-Mohawk project has resulted in a very high quality riparian habitat in the Republic of Mexico called the Cienega de Santa

Clara. There’s a great deal of wildlife value and benefit associated

with that use of that water.

The State of Arizona is very interested in making sure that some

kind of solution is put in place, whether we run the desalt plant

or find an alternative, but something that’s done that doesn’t create an impact to our water users, does not create increased risks

of shortages.

But we are willing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and

the IBWC to see if other alternatives are out there. Right now I

don’t know that there are any, but we are willing to try to solve

that problem as well.

The delta has been mentioned by Mr. Anderson. This is another

emerging issue. The delta again is a valuable wildlife resource in

the Republic of Mexico. The difficulty is on an overappropriated

river where a treaty, an international treaty has been in place for

many years, where can we generate additional water resources to

restore the delta. This is a very difficult problem.

I think as Arizona has looked at this issue, we want to make

sure that if any effort is put into delta restoration for wildlife, it’s

being done in the most scientifically useful way. And again, it has

to be done in a way that has no impact on Arizona water users and

on the reliability of that supply.

The last issue I want to mention is Endangered Species Act. The

Endangered Species Act, while many people feel needs to be modified, I think most water users now are of the understanding that

it’s not going to go away, and that we have to accommodate the

needs of the endangered species somewhat as a cost of doing business.

In that regard, the state of Arizona is participating with Nevada,

California, and the Federal Government to develop a multispecies

conservation program, to invest funding and resources in trying to

restore habitat along the Lower Colorado River Basin. We think

this is a very valuable program.

One of the difficulties though is that the cost of doing business

for endangered species can become very high, and there is a lot of

uncertainty with where the funding will come from with regard to

putting that program in place, how much will it cost, how much

will that translate into impacts on existing power and water users.

Those are some of the highlights of the issues with regard to the

Colorado River as we look at the 21st century. I just want to reiterate how important the Colorado River is to the state of Arizona.

It really is our lifeline. And as our history has shown, we’re willing

to invest a great deal of time, money, energy, hopefully not any

23

more litigation, that’s hopefully not the direction we’re headed with

the Colorado River any more, but it is a really critical water supply

for our state. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dishlip follows:]

Statement of Herb Dishlip, Assistant Director, on behalf of Joseph C.

Smith, Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources

Good Morning. I would like to thank the House Committee on Resources for the

opportunity to provide the State of Arizona’s perspective regarding management of

the Colorado River for the 21st century. The Arizona Department of Water Resources is the agency within Arizona that is statutorily authorized to represent the

State’s position regarding Colorado River matters in dealings with the Department

of the Interior, other federal agencies and the representatives of the other basin

states.

The Importance of the Colorado River to Arizona

The Colorado River is Arizona’s largest and most valuable renewable water resource. Arizona has an annual water demand for about 6.5 million acre feet (maf).

Our primary internal stream systems, the Salt, Verde, Gila and Little Colorado Rivers produce only about 1.5 maf annually. On the other hand, our Colorado River

entitlements in the Lower and Upper Basins total 2.85 maf. Some of that supply

is used more than once since irrigation uses along the Colorado River produce useable return flows. When that fact is considered, the Colorado River can meet over

half our needs. The final primary water source used in our State is groundwater,

and much of that withdrawal and use represents a mining condition. In many of

our State’s basins, water tables have dropped by hundreds of feet over the last sixty

years.

In large part due to the importance of the Colorado River in Arizona’s water budget, the State has had a history of being very conservative and protective with its

supplies and its claims for water rights. While Arizona participated fully in the negotiation of the Colorado River Compact in the early 1920’s when it came time to

ratify that agreement, the Legislature refused. The Compact negotiations were successful in apportioning water between the Upper and Lower Basins, but did not apportion the water between the Lower Basin states. Arizonans believed that they

would need, and indeed deserved, a much larger share of the Colorado River supply

than what California was offering. The Arizonans believed that if they continued to

hold out and use their political influence to delay the construction of Hoover Dam,

the California representatives would relent and Arizona would get a larger share

of the Colorado River. While that was the theory, the reality was that the other

Basin states lost patience with Arizona’s recalcitrance and moved forward to have

the Compact ratified by six states as long as California ratified and as long as they

agreed to limit their share to no more than 4.4 maf. This event allowed the beginning of the development of the Colorado River, but it also fixed in place within Arizona a very long-term perspective of caution regarding Colorado River management.

Arizona finally relented to the inevitable and agreed to ratify the Compact in

1944. It then began to move forward aggressively to develop its water share, primarily through the construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Federal authorization for the construction of the project came slowly due to objections first

from California and then from the Upper Basin states. This process, which finally

came to a head in 1968, left Arizona with somewhat of a siege mentality regarding

protecting its Colorado River supplies. Another outcome of the CAP negotiations was

that Arizona had to accept a lower priority for its CAP water in times of river shortage. In other words, California would be entitled to all of its 4.4 maf so long as the

CAP received any water. This one compromise of establishing priorities between the

states, while very common in the west, was new to the Colorado River. The risk of

having to bear shortages to our basic entitlement has had a greater impact on Arizona’s perspective on Colorado River management than any other factor.

While it is clear that the water supply from the Colorado River is critical to Arizona’s economy, there are many other ways that Arizona benefits from the Colorado

River. Hydroelectric power from the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) dams is widely

used within Arizona. Recreational activities, including boating and rafting, are very

important to our citizens and to a much broader national and international community. The Colorado River is also very valuable as a wildlife resource. It provides both

sport fishing and extremely valuable riparian habitat for non-sport fishing and other

wildlife.

24

Today’s Colorado River Issues

This background history sets the stage for dealing with today’s Colorado River

issues. By far the greatest issue in recent years has been the development of Interim Surplus Criteria. While California has been using more than its basic apportionment of 4.4 maf for many years, Arizona is just now approaching full use of its

entitlement. Without a significant need for additional water, the development of surplus criteria would normally have been a low priority. Arizona water users would

be perfectly satisfied to hold reservoirs high thereby maximizing carryover storage

to protect against shortages.

Arizona could have dug-in like we have in the past and refused to cooperate with

California. However, in recognition that the conditions and issues of the late 1990’s

were very different than the early 1920’s, Arizona’s water community decided that

reaching a reasonable compromise with California was preferable to continuing to

fight. Somewhat due to a strong linkage between the two state’s economies and

somewhat due to the recognition that our interests have a lot more in common than

we have differences, we attempted to put together a package which provided California with the necessary relief it needed, but still protected Arizona from impact

of shortage. We believe that the seven basin states proposed agreement presented

to the Secretary of the Interior and ultimately adopted as his preferred alternative,

while somewhat complex, set the stage for a new era in dealing cooperatively to

solve future water management issues.

In recognition that the overall agreement will result in a reduction of California’s

water demand to 4.4 maf over 15 years, Arizona has agreed to a surplus criteria

that will in many of those years waive its rights to its 46% of annual surplus entitlements. Previously, such an agreement would be dead on arrival in Arizona, but

that was not the case. The good faith agreements made by California water agencies, especially the San Diego County Water Authority, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California, have been treated with a new sense of trust. Recently, the Arizona Legislature passed, and Governor Jane Hull signed, a concurrent resolution

that will provide Arizona’s official blessing to the agreements that underlie the surplus criteria.

Emerging Colorado River Issues

With the surplus criteria issue hopefully behind us it is time to look forward to

solving new critical issues along the Colorado River.

• Better measurement and water accounting

The Interim Surplus Criteria and the California 4.4 Plan define limits on various

water users. Those limits must be enforced. The Bureau must now begin to act as

the water master or state engineer. The Bureau must refine its definition of the

Colorado River water accounting surface to more firmly establish what water is considered Colorado River water subject to the ‘‘Law of the River ‘‘and what is considered groundwater subject to state laws. Another part of enforcement will be to define when water users have exceeded their entitlement and then require payback

or mitigation. More accurate methods of determining consumptive uses must be

adopted including more accurate accounting of measured and unmeasured return

flows.

• Mexican border issues

Salinity levels have long been an issue and resulted in a modification of the 1944

treaty through adoption of Minute 242. Management of irrigation return flows in

the Yuma area plays a critical role in deliveries to Mexico. The Mexican officials

have expressed concern about rising salinity levels at the southern international

boundary. Opportunities are being investigated to provide an alternate water supply

during critical periods to alleviate some of the water quality concerns.

The implementation of the Interim Surplus Criteria has put focus on the issues

associated with the running of the Yuma Desalting Plant (Desalting Plant). This

Desalting Plant was constructed as an authorized feature of the Colorado River Salinity Control Act, but it has never been operated. Currently, over 100,000 acre feet

of irrigation return flows in the Yuma area are being bypassed to Cienega de Santa

Clara. The Salinity Control Act established a national obligation to reclaim that

supply and make it useable for delivery to Mexican water users. However, in the

intervening years, the return flows have created a very valuable wildlife resource

in the Cienega. The Bureau must find ways to meet the obligation established by

the Salinity Control Act. Arizona is willing to work with the Bureau in identifying

alternatives that will not require the use of the Desalting Plant. However, Arizona

is not willing to bear any additional risks to its water supplies or increase the risk

of shortages to the CAP that could be the result of alternatives that would be less

25

effective than the original concept of reclaiming the water through the Desalting

Plant.

Restoration of the wildlife habitat associated with Colorado River Delta in Mexico

has been the subject of much recent discussion. Arizona, along with the other basin

states, has begun to engage in a dialogue with non-governmental organizations and

the International Boundary and Water Commission to better define the problems

and needs of the Delta. Arizona believes restoration efforts must be done using the

best scientific information about the needs of region. Arizona is cautious about proposals that might require water resources that would be in addition to those provided to the Republic of Mexico in the 1944 Treaty. As mentioned earlier in this

testimony, Colorado River resources are extremely important and valuable to Arizona. We cannot foresee support for any plan that would put Arizona’s ability to

fully utilize its share of that resource at risk because more water would need to be

made available to the Delta.

• Endangered Species Issues

The Lower Colorado River area has been identified as critical habitat for a number of endangered species. Arizona has joined with the other Lower Basin states and

the federal agencies to develop a comprehensive management approach called the

Multi–Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Arizona believes that the MSCP currently represents the best approach to providing for recovery of existing endangered

species while at the same time providing adequate habitat to avoid the listing of

any new species. The comprehensive nature of the MSCP is intended to provide the

means to allow the Bureau and the various water and power users to continue to

operate the Colorado River system to provide traditional benefits while still protecting critical habitat. While there are many who advocate that the Endangered

Species Act should be modified, it is not going away. It must be dealt with as part

of the ‘‘cost of doing business’’. The MSCP is a positive cooperative Federal, state

and private process to mitigate endangered species impacts and to recover species.

Unfortunately, this new cost of business can be very expensive. How will the funding be obtained? What is a fair distribution of the costs? Resolution of these issues

will make or break the program.

Conclusion

Arizona has long recognized the importance of the Colorado River to its economy

and its quality of life. As the 21St century begins, we recognize that without increased attention paid to the management of the River’s resources, new issues and

conflicts will arise. Arizona’s involvement in the development of the Interim Surplus

Criteria should be viewed as an example of how the State and its water and power

users have recognized that parties with differing points of view can work cooperatively to find innovative solutions and avoid litigation. New issues are emerging and

will undoubtedly be difficult to solve. It is Arizona’s desire to be an active participant in finding solutions to those issues.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Jeanine Jones.

STATEMENT OF JEANINE JONES, DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS

MANAGER, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you for inviting California to testify at your field hearing today. I’m Jeanine Jones, the

Drought Preparedness Manager for the California Department of

Water Resources, and an alternate board member of California’s

Colorado River Board.

The Colorado River is our largest interstate water supply and it’s

very important to urbanized southern California, which is about 60

percent reliant on imported supplies. About half of California’s population lives within the service area of the Metropolitan Water District in southern California, and more than half of the service

area’s imported water supply comes from the Colorado River.

If we were limited today to our basic annual interstate apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet, MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct

would be flowing only about half full. And this fact has been one

of the significant inducements for our local agencies who use river

26

water to work together to develop the Colorado River Water Use

Plan. The Plan describes actions that the local agencies will take

to reduce their use of river water, such as, for example, transfers

of conserved agricultural water to the urban areas, lining the remaining unlined portions of the major U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

conveyance facilities, and groundwater storage projects.

Implementing the Plan can’t be accomplished, however, without

further quantification of the agencies’ historical rights to river

water that were established in the 1931 agreement. So therefore,

this entails negotiating a new agreement among the local agencies

that’s known as the Quantification Settlement Agreement, or the

QSA. This master agreement, together with a number of other documents and accompanying agreements, will establish the framework to allow Plan activities, such as the agricultural to urban

water transfers.

In 1999, the local agencies reached agreement on the key terms

to be used for this QSA and its water budget, and work since then

has focused on finalizing the QSA, the related agreements, as well

as on the state and Federal environmental compliance activities

that will allow the agencies’ boards of directors to execute this

package of agreements.

The QSA and related agreements are expected to be finalized for

environmental review by the end of this year, leaving next year for

completion of the Federal and state environmental processes. It is

imperative that the QSA and its accompanying agreements be executed by the end of 2002, as was already mentioned, or else the

benefits to California of the recently adopted Interim Surplus

Guidelines will be suspended until such time as California does

execute the agreement. The Guidelines, in essence, are providing a

safety net for California while the measures in the Water Use Plan

are being put in place, and their suspension would put urbanized

southern California at substantial risk of shortages.

California appreciates the recognition of the other basin states of

this risk of substantial M&I shortages as well as the other states’

cooperation in developing the joint proposal that eventually became

the Interim Surplus Criteria that were approved earlier this year.

The local agencies are making good progress toward implementing on-the-ground actions to reduce use of river water, assisted by substantial state funding that’s been made available

through the state’s general fund and through voter- approved bond

measures for the water management actions. For example, we recently executed a contract providing $74 million of state financial

assistance to Metropolitan Water District for lining the remaining

portion of the Coachella Canal, and we’re very near signature of

another contract providing $35 million in state funding for MWD’s

Hayfield Groundwater Storage Project, which will cost a little more

than double the amount of our contribution.

The most significant obstacle at this point to the local agencies

being able to finalize the QSA package and move forward with the

Water Use Plan is uncertainty associated with Salton Sea environmental restoration plans. When the agencies had agreed to the key

terms in 1999, it was expected that a Salton Sea restoration program would be adopted fairly soon, prior to QSA execution, therefore defining a baseline against which the environmental impacts

27

of the proposed urban water transfers could be assessed. As it has

turned out, selection and implementation of the Salton Sea

Restoration Plan remains pending. And if these issues aren’t addressed in a timely manner, the local agencies may not be able to

reach agreement on the QSA before the initial compliance date for

the Interim Surplus Guidelines, which is, of course, a concern to

everyone. We remain hopeful that a way can be found to accommodate Salton Sea restoration programs while allowing the QSA to go

forward. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]

Statement of Jeanine Jones, Drought Preparedness Manager,

California Department of Water Resources

Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you for inviting California to participate with the

other Basin States in your field hearing. My testimony will briefly describe the role

of the Colorado River in California’s overall water supplies, then summarize the status of implementation of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan and the

Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines affecting Lake Mead operations. The

Colorado River Water Use Plan is a framework document identifying how California

will reduce its use, over a multi-year period, to the basic interstate apportionment

provided in statute. The Interim Surplus Guidelines, adopted by the Department of

Interior this January, are a key component of the Water Use Plan.

Role of Colorado River in California’s Water Supplies

The Colorado River is California’s largest interstate water supply. To put the river

into perspective with California’s overall water supplies, the State’s average annual

intrastate surface water runoff is about 71 million acre-feet; average annual interstate Colorado River supplies have historically been about 5.2 MAF. Colorado River

supplies have been highly reliable, buffering urbanized Southern California against

the impacts of the State’s 1987–92 drought. Nearly 60 MAF of surface water storage

has been developed on the river system as a whole, corresponding to about four

times the river’s average annual flow. This substantial storage capacity makes possible the operational flexibility key to implementing the Interim Surplus Guidelines.

Much of the area within California served by the Colorado River has no other significant water supply. The river supports agricultural water users in the southeastern corner of the State—providing virtually all of the water used by Imperial

Irrigation District (IID), Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), and the Yuma

Project, as well as much of the water used by Coachella Valley Water District

(CVWD). The river supports urban water users in the intensively developed Southern California coastal plain, an area that includes all or parts of six counties and

half of the State’s population. More than 60 percent of urbanized Southern California’s water supplies have historically been imported from elsewhere—from the Central Valley by the California Department of Water Resources’ (CDWR’s) State Water

Project, from the Mono–Owens River area by the City of Los Angeles Aqueduct, and

from the Colorado River by Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD’s) Aqueduct. More

than half of the region’s imported water supply has historically come from the

Colorado River. The river provides valuable hydrologic diversification for Southern

California in the event of dry conditions in Northern California watersheds.

Use and management of Colorado River water is governed by the complex body

of statutes, decrees, court decisions, and contracts known collectively as the Law of

the River. One key California element is the Seven Party Agreement of 1931, which

divided the Colorado River waters apportioned to California among local water

users—PVID, Yuma Project, IID, CVWD, MWD, the City of Los Angeles, and the

City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. (The City of San Diego and the

County of San Diego are both now represented in Colorado River matters by the

San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)). The local water users receive their

share of California’s apportionment through contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Expanding upon the Seven–Party Agreement to further quantify

rights and priority to use of Colorado River water lies at the heart of implementing

California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan.

Development of a Plan

California’s use of Colorado River water has historically exceeded its basic apportionment of 4.4 MAF annually (plus half of any available surplus water in the

Lower Basin), because California has been able to put to use surplus water as well

28

as the unused apportionments of Nevada and Arizona. Completion of USBR’s Central Arizona Project, Arizona’s 1996 enactment of a state groundwater banking act,

population growth in Nevada and Arizona, and increased Upper Basin water use

have all contributed to the diminution of unused apportionment water and surplus

water. Water use in the Lower Basin States is now exceeding the yearly 7.5 MAF

basic limit established by the Law of the River.

Renewed interest among the other Basin States regarding California’s need to reduce its historical reliance on river water began during the 1987–92 drought, when

shortages in imported Northern California supplies highlighted urban Southern

California’s dependence on the Colorado River. As set forth in the Seven Party

Agreement of 1931, this densely urbanized area is the junior water user within California with respect to its basic apportionment of Colorado River water. MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct would flow only about half full if California were to be

suddenly limited to the 4.4 MAF basic annual apportionment, reducing Southern

California’s water supplies by as much as 600 thousand acre-feet and creating severe economic impacts. Discussions among the Basin States regarding California’s need to live within its apportionment resulted in preparation of a document by the

Colorado River Board of California (CRB) illustrating how the local agencies would

reduce their use of river water through actions such as the conservation of agricultural water and its transfer to urban agencies. The first of these conservation and

transfer actions was embodied in a 1988 agreement between MWD and IID. Subsequently, initial agreements were reached between SDCWA and IID for another

project of this type.

CRB’s document, then known as the draft ‘‘4.4 Plan’’, was released in December

1997; it has expanded over time into the draft Colorado River Water Use Plan. The

Plan remains in draft form today, pending completion of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), other related agreements, and resolution of Salton Sea environmental issues. The Plan, also intended to resolve pending legal disputes within

California, is based on the premise that its interlinked water management actions

and agreements among California’s users of river water will be implemented as a

package; its components are not intended to be separable.

The draft Plan describes water management actions to be taken in the near-term

to reduce river water use, and identifies other actions that need further evaluation

before they can be implemented. Actions identified for near-term implementation by

the local agencies involved in Plan preparation include lining the remaining unlined

sections of USBR’s All–American and Coachella Canals, implementation of the IID– SDCWA transfer, and development of groundwater conjunctive use and storage

projects. The Plan also describes actions that may be taken by individual water retailers or water users, especially within urbanized Southern California, to reduce

their dependence on imported water supplies. These actions, including water conservation, water recycling, and groundwater management projects, are eligible for

State financial assistance from voter-approved bond measures. Department of the

Interior adoption of the Interim Surplus Guidelines for Lake Mead operations and

the development of certain water administration/water accounting procedures are

also key components of the Plan. The accounting procedures include an inadvertent

overrun and payback policy under development by USBR in consultation with the

Basin States.

It was apparent during initial development of the 4.4 Plan that new Colorado

River water management practices, such as the proposed agricultural to urban

water transfers, could not be implemented without further quantification of rights

and priority to use of Colorado River water. In essence, the negotiators of the 1931

agreement simplified the task before them by making only a partial division of California’s apportionment, leaving it for others to complete the task. Most importantly,

the agreement does not specifically quantify the 3.85 MAF of water contained in its

first, second, and third priorities and allocated to the agricultural agencies, nor does

it quantify the division of third-priority water among the agencies. The agreement

also does not contain water operations or accounting provisions, such as measurement locations and methods and treatment of return flows.

Much of the time needed for Colorado River Water Use Plan development has

been spent by the local water agencies in negotiating the further quantification of

rights and priority to the use of Colorado River Water needed to enable Plan implementation. The initial result of these negotiations was a document known as the

Key Terms for Quantification Settlement, completed in October 1999. This document sets forth water budgets and transfers associated with Plan implementation.

As stated in the document, This is not a contract or an enforceable legal document.

Rather these key material terms will be utilized by the Districts to obtain public

input and by the Districts’ attorneys and negotiators to prepare legal documents

that will contain all of the terms and provisions of the Quantification Settlement.

29

Following release of these Key Terms, the local agencies began negotiation of the

QSA, an over-arching agreement to incorporate the Key Terms and link together

other separate agreements (among the local agencies themselves, between individual local agencies and the Secretary of the Interior, and between individual local

agencies and the State of California) associated with elements of the QSA. These

other agreements include, for example, local agencies’ water acquisition agreements

to match the water budgets established by the Key Terms. Related work includes

preparation of environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

Current Status of Plan Implementation

It is expected that the QSA and its related agreements will be completed for consideration by the boards of directors of the local water agencies by the end of this

year, pending completion of environmental documents. The local agencies are now

focusing much of their time on preparing the environmental documents. Addressing

Salton Sea impacts associated with planned projects such as the IID–SDCWA transfer is key to moving forward with execution of the QSA and its related agreements.

When the Key Terms were adopted in 1999, Salton Sea restoration work—the outcome of studies being prepared by the Salton Sea Authority and by the federal government—was expected to be implemented before the effective date of the QSA. The

restoration work subsequently did not proceed as expected, substantially complicating QSA negotiations.

Meanwhile, a major milestone was reached in January 2001 when the Secretary

of the Interior signed a Record of Decision for the Interim Surplus Guidelines, as

jointly recommended to him by all seven Basin States. Subsequently, the State of

Arizona ratified a Surplus Guidelines Agreement with MWD as part of enabling implementation of the guidelines. A Surplus Guidelines Agreement is also under development between MWD and the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Surplus conditions have been declared for 2001, allowing MWD to maintain a full Colorado River

Aqueduct. If the QSA and its related agreements are not fully executed in their final

form by December 31, 2002, the benefits to California of the Interim Surplus Guidelines will be suspended until such time as the agreements are completed, and the

reliability of Southern California’s water supplies will be at risk.

The Guidelines describe how USBR will manage Lake Mead releases over the

next 15 years, and have been characterized as providing a ‘‘soft landing’’ for California water agencies while they carry out Plan actions to reduce their use of river

water. The Guidelines allow a greater fluctuation in reservoir operating levels within the historical range of Lake Mead operations, providing increased certainty that

urban water users in MWD’s service area will continue to experience a full Colorado

River Aqueduct through federal declarations of surplus conditions. The Guidelines

also provide surplus water benefits to urban water users in Southern Nevada and

Arizona. California has appreciated the cooperative spirit with which its neighboring

Lower Basin States have helped make this limited-term reservoir reoperation possible.

The Guidelines contain incentives for California to implement the Water Use Plan

in a timely manner. They provide that if California does not meet specified water

use reductions during the 15-year period, Lake Mead operations will revert to the

historical spill-avoidance mode and MWD will bear the associated risk of shortages

to its urban service area. In particular, it is critical that the Plan’s canal lining

projects be completed by 2006 for MWD to avoid the risk of shortages.

In 1998, California legislation authorized the provision of $235 million from the

State General Fund to support Water Use Plan implementation by providing financial assistance for lining parts of the All American and Coachella Canals and for

groundwater storage and conjunctive use projects. CDWR has executed an agreement with MWD to provide $74 million for the Coachella Canal lining; this project

is now at the design stage. CDWR is nearing completion of a similar agreement with

MWD to provide $35 million for its Hayfield groundwater storage and conjunctive

use project. Up to 800 TAF of surplus Colorado River water, when available, could

be stored in a groundwater basin adjacent to the Colorado River Aqueduct at Hayfield Valley, located in a desert area east of the Coachella Valley. This estimated

$68 million project is expected to be completed by 2006. Negotiations have also

begun on an agreement with IID for funding the All American Canal lining. The

1998 legislation placed conditions on the availability of State canal lining funding,

including a requirement that no money be expended until specified environmental

compliance actions were completed. Expenditure of State funds is pending completion of environmental compliance actions.

In addition to these State monies specifically targeted for Colorado River Water

Use Plan implementation, financial assistance provided by recent State bond measVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:17 Jun 14, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73637.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
30

ures will further help local agencies in Southern California reduce their reliance on

Colorado River water. Statewide, the 1996 Proposition 204 made available

$60 million for water recycling loans/grants and $25 million for groundwater recharge and water conservation loans, plus $2.5 million for Salton Sea environmental

studies. Proposition 13 in 2000 provided $40 million for water recycling loans/

grants, $155 million for recharge and water conservation loans/grants, $200 million

for groundwater storage grants, and $235 million for Santa Ana River watershed

project grants that include groundwater reclamation/water conservation/water recycling.

In summary, water agencies throughout Southern California have been moving

forward with projects to lessen their dependence on imported supplies from both the

Colorado River and the SWP, facilitated by the substantial State bond funding recently made available, and by initial implementation of the CALFED Bay–Delta

Program. It remains important for the State and federal governments to support the

agencies’ efforts to maximize their locally available supplies and to maintain the

quality of the environmental resources associated with use of the imported supplies.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Holsinger.

STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. HOLSINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the

Committee. I’m Kent Holsinger, Assistant Director of Colorado Department of Natural Resources. It’s a real pleasure and a real

honor to be here today before the Committee here in Salt Lake City

to talk about Colorado River issues.

Nearly four-fifths of the flow at Lee Ferry in Arizona originates

from Colorado, the headwaters of Wedge Harbor, the Colorado

River. From there it begins its 1,400-mile descent over 12,000

vertical feet until it eventually reaches the Sea of Cortez in the Republic of Mexico.

Millions of Coloradans on both sides of the Continental Divide

depend upon the Colorado River for drinking water, irrigation,

power production, and other uses, such as recreation. We are allocated some 51.75 percent of the Upper Basin’s allocation of the

Colorado River. That equates to about 3.855 million acre-feet, as

set forth under the compacts.

But Colorado, as you well know, as many of the Western states,

is experiencing rapid growth and rapid increases in demand on

Colorado River water from a variety of different sectors, and our

infrastructure has not kept up with the demand. With 4.2 million

people, we have more and more demand on the Colorado River for

increasing drinking water supplies for municipal areas and other

uses.

And as we know, the best protection against increasing demand,

against drought that is certain to occur, prolonged drought, is new

water storage in the basin. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates

that water storage in Colorado has saved some $20 billion against

flooding and drought in the state; that’s about $6 for every dollar

spent on new water storage in our state. And demand is certain to

point to the need for more in the future.

Today we have several challenges on the Colorado River. One is

implementing California’s Water Use Plan. The State of Colorado

greatly appreciates the work of the other basin states, and particularly of California, to coming to this historic agreement to limit

them to their 4.4 million acre-feet. But now we need to see that

31

that Plan is implemented in a way that comports with the Plan

itself and the Law of the River.

Pressure from environmentalists on the Mexican delta is a topic

that you’ve heard about today and one that we share great concerns about. I might point out to the Committee that we’re in compliance with the 1944 treaty that regards Colorado River water use

among the two nations, and certainly with the Law of the River.

I might also add that Mexican agriculture lies between the border of the United States and the Sea of Cortez, and nearly every

drop of the Colorado River is diverted for that agriculture in Mexico. Similarly, they have plans, great plans for development along

the delta, and we urge the Committee to consider how Mexico’s use

of Colorado River water affects the environment in the delta. And

we strongly oppose using Colorado River water from the United

States to address any perceived problems there.

We also see Federal challenges to Colorado River water use. The

Endangered Species Act was mentioned earlier today. We also have

Federal reserved rights claims, bypass flows, and other challenges

to grapple with. Among the foremost in that arena may be recovery

goals for the endangered Colorado River fish. The State of Colorado

is working very hard to see that any goals published are consistent

with the Law of the River, state laws, and interstate compacts that

make it up, and that recovery goals are based on species response

and not Federal control over the Colorado River.

We also face quantification of the National Park Service’s reserved rights claims to the Black Canyon and the Gunnison. The

flows claimed by the Park Service there are so great they would

greatly impact power production, they would ruin gold medal trout

habitat, and potentially cause dam safety and flooding problems in

the towns of Delta and Grand Junction in Colorado.

We have the U.S. Forest Service continuing to impose bypass

flows on our water providers whenever they have permits that

come due, and we hope the Committee will take an interest in

maybe creative ways to resolve problems with the Forest Service

in protecting flows on forest lands without extorting them from our

water providers.

We have forest management issues as well. The same—the same

problems that have caused the wildfires in recent years in the West

are also greatly diminishing water yields on National Forest lands

that otherwise would be in the system for the states to use. With

40 million acres subject to catastrophic wildfires, we’ve got a real

problem with the density of our forests and how that affects our

water yields.

The best state of the science says that there is a direct relationship between our forest and our water, and would urge the Committee to consider that, and the United States Forest Service and

the administration as well.

Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group, we have concerns with where we’re going there, where we’ve been. It’s been

several years now without significant oversight, I think, or even an

audit into how this process was proceeding, how what they’re doing

affects power production and water supply issues in the West.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there’s a myriad of difficult issues

along the Colorado River. We greatly look forward to working with

32

the other basin states, the Congress, and the administration to address these issues. We have much in common. Perhaps, most importantly, we share a need to educate the public about the value

of our water resources and the risk to our water resources.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude my remarks. And again,

I appreciate the chance to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holsinger follows:]

Statement of Kent Holsinger, Assistant Director, Colorado Department of

Natural Resources

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to

appear today to discuss management of the Colorado River for the 21st Century.

With ever-increasing demands on Colorado River water, the seven Colorado Basin

States must protect their ability to manage, allocate and use it under the complex

array of state laws, interstate compacts, treaties and agreements that comprise ‘‘the

Law of the River.’’ For over a century, some form of the doctrine of prior appropriations has guided Western states through economic prosperity and depression,

through wet years and dry years, through thick and through thin. Water defined

the history of the West, as it will surely influence its future.

Background

The first European explorers labeled what is now the State of Colorado an arid

wasteland—a ‘‘Great American Desert’’ unfit for settlement or cultivation. Easterners considered agriculture in Colorado impossible and irrigation absurd. But

thousands traversed the Great Plains and followed Horace Greeley’s call to ‘‘Go

West young man and grow with your country.’’ With courage, ingenuity and grit,

the pioneers transformed the arid desert into the fertile land we recognize as

Colorado today.

Perhaps no river defines the State like the Colorado River. It begins in the tundra

of the Rocky Mountains as trickle of frigid snowmelt cascading down the West side

of Longs Peak. There, it begins its fourteen hundred mile, winding descent. From

its humble beginnings, the Colorado River quickly swells, sweeping in runoff from

countless tributaries in Western Colorado. It then carves through mountains, canyons, plains and desert before quietly disappearing into the Sea of Cortez. Millions

of people in Colorado and the West depend upon the Colorado River for drinking

water, irrigation, recreation and power generation. It has earned the reputation as

the most ‘‘legislated, litigated, and debated’’ river in the world.

Colorado’s Use of the Colorado River

The Colorado River is a vitally important resource for the State of Colorado. Approximately 11.0 million acre feet (MAF) of the River’s average annual flow of 15.0

million acre feet at Lee Ferry, Arizona originates in Colorado. Of this 11.0 MAF,

Colorado consumptively uses roughly 1.9 MAF. The balance currently flows out of

the State for the benefit of downstream users. Under the Compacts, Colorado is entitled to the consumptive use of 3.855 MAF or 51.75% of the flows of the Colorado

River allocated to the Upper Basin.

More than 4.2 million people currently reside in Colorado. Within the State and

within the Colorado River Basin, farmers and ranchers irrigate roughly 850,000

acres. Irrigated agriculture uses roughly 1.5 MAF of Colorado River water and contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the State’s economy each year. Thousands

of families depend on these irrigated farmlands for their livelihoods and their sustenance. Within the basin, rural communities are held together by the bonds of agriculture and water. But the river also serves some 3.0 million people outside the

basin. Eastern Slope water providers divert 500,000 AF annually from the river to

serve growing needs on Colorado’s booming Front Range.

The Colorado River Basin offers the only significant source of new developable

water for the State with approximately two million acre feet still available under

Colorado’s compact apportionment. The State favors incentives to more efficiently

use water, building additional water storage and improving forest management to

increase supplies for the benefit of people and the environment. Several challenges

loom in regards to Colorado’s compact apportioned share of the Colorado River.

The California Water Use Plan

The State of Colorado commends the State of California and its stakeholders for

all of the hard work, negotiations and compromise that led to the development of

the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria. Limiting California to its compact apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:17 Jun 14, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73637.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
33

portioned 4.4 MAF is of primary importance to the State of Colorado. However, the

efforts to fully implement this plan are far from complete.

The present plan requires over 30 separate agreements in order for successful implementation to occur. Those agreements will include federal legislation and funding

mechanisms. While Colorado strongly supports California’s efforts, such support

should not come at the expense of present and future needs to develop compact

water within the State of Colorado. We urge the Congress to carefully evaluate

these agreements, and particularly any federal legislation, and to work with the

seven Colorado River Basin States to ensure such proposals comport with California’s Water Use Plan.

State officials will be closely monitoring several other issues related to the implementation of this plan. For example, some of the legislative proposals to address

water quality problems with the Salton Sea may complicate implementation of the

California 4.4 plan. Any use of Colorado River water for the Salton Sea will be hotly

contested.

Given the short time frame anticipated before publication of the proposed inadvertent overrun accounting policy, several issues remain unresolved. We will be

working with the other states to schedule a meeting soon to complete these discussions. We hope to see an example of the proposed accounting from California prior

to any such meetings.

The State of Colorado has received assurances from California officials that the

power crisis will not affect the implementation of California’s Water Use Plan nor

negate the benefits of the Interim Surplus Criteria set forth in the January 17,

2001, Record of Decision. Nevertheless, we remain concerned about how increasing

demands for power generation will affect water supplies in this dry year.

Mexican Delta Issues

The State of Colorado wishes to emphasize the importance of proceeding with due

caution on issues related to the Mexican Delta. The Congress should be aware that

all water resource use on the Colorado River within the United States has been consistent with the 1944 Mexican Treaty and other aspects of the ‘‘Law of the River.’’

The State of Colorado stridently objects to any suggestion that water for restoration

efforts in Mexico come from the Colorado River in the United States. We urge the

Congress and the Bush Administration to ensure any discussions regarding the

Colorado River Delta be done in full and complete consultation with the seven

Colorado River Basin States.

Between the American border and the Sea of Cortez, lies Mexico’s largest and

most productive agricultural land. Each year, Mexico diverts nearly every drop of

the Colorado River into the Central Canal for agricultural uses. Moreover, President

Vicente Fox plans a vast network of upscale marinas around Baja California and

the Mexican Delta. The program, labeled ‘‘Nautical Steps’’ would cover more than

2,500 miles of coast, and is aimed at luring the 1.6 million boat owners from California and other nearby states into a new system of harbors, wharves, hotels and

restaurants. President Fox says the development is critical for economic growth but

some environmentalists call it a threat to the Mexican Delta.

The previous Administration initiated discussions with Mexico and environmental

organizations to address perceived water needs of the Colorado River Delta in Mexico. These efforts have resulted in a new conceptual Minute (306) to the International Treaty with Mexico. A symposium on these issues is planned for September. The State of Colorado has serious concerns with the symposium and believes Mexico should be responsible for water use issues within its borders. If environmental issues need to be addressed, we encourage Mexico to pursue flow management and structural alternatives within their borders.

We urge the Bush Administration and the Congress to carefully consider how actions within Mexico affect the Delta. Specifically, more information is needed on

water use, fishing pressure, development proposals and environmental laws in Mexico. A complete understanding of complex intrastate, interstate and international

issues must predicate further decisions on this important issue.

Federal Challenges to State Administration

Federal reserved water rights, bypass flows and endangered species requirements

also strain Colorado River resources. Water rights, water laws and interstate compacts must be protected from unwarranted federal intervention. At the same time,

the federal government must be held accountable for its own actions related to the

management of land and water resources. For example, sound management of federal forest lands in the Colorado River Basin could lead to healthier, more diverse

forests and increased water supplies for endangered species, agriculture and drinking water.

34

Endangered Species Act Issues

The State of Colorado recognizes the importance of balancing the needs of native

species with continued economic development. With an emphasis on collaboration,

voluntary action, partnerships and property rights, the State of Colorado will take

aggressive steps to keep species from being listed, and to delist those that are already federally protected. Meanwhile, the State continues its involvement in the

Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program and the San Juan River

Recovery Implementation Program. Work continues on the Glen Canyon Dam

Adaptive Management Program, and Lower Basin Multi–Species Conservation Program (MSCP) as well. All of these programs need to be collectively coordinated.

In the 1960s, the federal government and the states attempted to eradicate native

Colorado River fish in favor of non-native trout, catfish and other species. The State

is now working with stakeholders and the federal government to recover these native species. Recovery program participants have long recognized the need to remove

non-natives and restock the endangered species. Recently, and most importantly,

the State of Colorado has been working with other program participants to develop

achievable recovery goals based upon sound science. Through these efforts, we hope

to achieve the ultimate goal of the these efforts’recovery and delisting of the species.

These goals must, however, be consistent with State laws, interstate compacts

and the Law of the River. Moreover, recovery goals must be based upon species response—not federal control and influence over flows in the Colorado River. The

State of Colorado will veto the continuation of the Upper Colorado River Recovery

Program until those two conditions are fulfilled. Without the program, programmatic biological opinions will be invalidated and millions of acre feet of decreed

water rights will be subject to rigorous Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act.

The State of Colorado believes both basins will benefit from sound goals that will

lead to the recovery and delisting of the species and expects the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish recovery goals soon. The Colorado pikeminnow are increasing

to the point where de-listing, or at least down-listing, is a distinct possibility. Similar progress is being made with the humpback chub. Razorback suckers are also beginning to show signs of improvement, but we need additional emphasis on the

bonytail chub. The State does not support the designation of Distinct Population

Segments for the pikeminnow and humpback chub. Rather, they should be recovered and delisted throughout their historic ranges. Any such designation for the razorback sucker or bonytail chub should be made only when more information on the

species is available.

Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program

Revised recovery goals are being developed for the basin and the Upper Colorado

and San Juan programs appear to be on fairly solid ground. However, we have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Workgroup established

pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act has not operated within the documents that were to govern its actions. As a result, its activities have far exceeded

the scope of the program. Section 1804 of the Act calls for an audit of the costs and

benefits of the adaptive management program to water and power users and to natural, recreational and cultural resources. It is high time for such an audit to occur.

National Parks Service Reserved Water Rights Quantification on the Black Canyon

The State of Colorado filed a Statement of Opposition to the ill-founded National

Park Service quantification of a water right filing in Colorado water court. After repeated requests to work with the State were ignored, the National Park Service

filed for quantification of reserved water rights to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison

National Park. State officials believe flows requested on this major tributary to the

Colorado River will seriously impact Colorado’s right to develop compact apportioned water, power production, fish habitat and cause dam safety issues and potentially flooding in the towns of Delta and Grand Junction.

Some 383 Statements of Opposition were filed to the National Park Service

claims’more than any other filing in the State’s history. State representatives will

be working closely with water providers and the Department of Interior to see that

these issues are coordinated with flow recommendations pending for endangered

fish and eventually resolved in a way that protects Colorado’s compact apportionment.

Western States Join Colorado’s Fight Against Federal Bypass Flows

Many of Colorado’s water supply facilities are located on, or transport water

across, federal lands. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has imposed bypass flows

35

requirements on water providers as conditions to permit renewals in an attempt to

provide instream flow protection on federal lands. These hotly controversial, and

largely unsuccessful, bypass flows fail to provide any real environmental protection

and instead create an environment of hostility and distrust. Bypass flows fly in the

face of well-established principles of federalism and property rights. Moreover, they

simply don’t work.

Opposition to bypass flows is a bipartisan issue in Colorado. Attorney General

Ken Salazar, in an article published by the Colorado Water Congress, pointed out

that the federal government has spent some $70 million dollars fighting the states

over water with little to show for it. Last fall, the Forest Service stated its intent

to use bypass flows more frequently. Recently, it even advocated condemnation of

water rights. On March 15th, the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New

Mexico and Wyoming filed an amicus brief in support of Colorado’s position that the

U.S. Forest Service has no legal authority to impose bypass flows on water providers

as a condition of permit renewals. The case at hand was filed in federal court by

Trout Unlimited against the U.S. Forest Service. Trout Unlimited argues in their

complaint that not only is the federal government authorized to impose such extortive requirements’they are obligated to do so.

Rather than continue with this unnecessary and wasteful practice, the State of

Colorado favors the creation of an incentive program funded by the Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF). One of the purposes of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 is to ‘‘authorize the purchase of lands, waters or interests

in land or waters within the National Forest System. In the past, this fund has primarily been used for the purchase of new recreational lands. Over the past 35 years,

7 million acres of land has been protected using the LWCF. With the help of the

Congress, we may be able to achieve similar success protecting water. Given this

kind of incentive, there will be tremendous opportunities for the states to work with

the U.S. Forest Service to protect water resources on forest lands.

The State of Colorado proposes Congress amend the LWCF to direct the Forest

Service to use its allocated LWCF monies, some $130.9 million if fully funded, to

provide incentives for water right holders to transfer their rights to the agency. The

amendment could then instruct the agency to donate those rights to states with

instream flow programs, enter into contractual arrangements, or pursue other creative means to work with the states. Any and all measures, however, must be consistent with State laws, the McCarran Amendment, interstate compacts, and the

Law of the River.

Drought and the Need for Water Storage

Continued growth within the State of Colorado strains our ability to meet increasing demands on water. The failure to develop new water supplies has not slowed

Colorado’s rampant growth. It has contributed to the dry up of irrigated agriculture.

Without new water supplies, the conversion of agricultural water rights will continue to threaten communities, ranches and farms, open space and wildlife habitat.

The last two summers’ hot, dry conditions provide a sobering reminder of cyclic

drought and devastation. In December of 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens convened a state-wide conference on flood and drought preparedness. There, we learned

the question is not ‘‘if’’ but ‘‘when’’ we will enter another severe, long-term drought

like the dust bowl of the 1930s or the drought of the 1950s. Only water storage provides adequate protection against these natural disasters. So a recent survey that

found 90% of Coloradans believe we should build reservoirs to conserve surplus

Colorado River water did not come as a surprise.

The first Europeans to explore what is now Colorado labeled it an arid wasteland.

In this century, water storage and irrigation transformed the State. Cottonwoods

and willows dot the once-treeless plains. Rivers that dried up in the summer months

now provide drinking water, irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat year-round.

However, last year, Colorado suffered a dry spring and record-breaking summer

heat which led to drought conditions. South Platte River flows were lower than ever

in recorded history and demand for irrigation water drained several key reservoirs.

Nearly two dozen counties were forced to seek federal drought disaster relief. Several other communities placed restrictions on lawn watering, showers and even toilet flushing. Conditions are not markedly better this year.

In a sustained drought, farmers and ranchers would lack water required to

produce food. Many could be forced to sell their land or water, thereby encouraging

development of open space and loss of wildlife habitat. Even farms with senior

water rights could be gobbled up by municipalities thirsty for drinking water. The

impact on rural communities could be devastating. Conservation measures help

stretch limited supplies, but conservation alone may not be enough. Some water

users are collaborating to stretch supplies through innovative new measures such

36

as conjunctive use and water reuse. These efforts, which examine how to recharge

aquifers in wet years and reuse municipal water for irrigation and industrial use,

hold real promise. But the most certain drought protection is a long-term water supply through storage.

At Governor Bill Owens’ flood and drought conference, the Army Corps of Engineers calculated reservoirs have saved Coloradans $19.8 billion from natural disasters like floods and droughts. That equates to a six dollar savings for every dollar

spent on reservoirs for flood control and drought mitigation. Water storage also provides resources for recreation and wildlife. Our challenge is to bring together diverse

interests to find common goals for the benefit of local communities and the environment. Without adequate planning, innovative measures and new water storage, the

West could once again resemble the hostile and arid wastelands disparaged by early

travelers.

Power Production

Because today’s society is driven, more and more, by electronic devices such as

computers, cell phones, pagers and electronic address books, the importance of dependable supplies of electrical power is more important than ever. However, power

generation in the Colorado River Basin must be consistent with the Law of the

River. Some legislative proposals to alleviate power demand would upset the delicate balance of state laws, compacts, treaties and agreements along the Colorado

River. We urge the Congress to work with the seven Colorado River Basin States

on any such proposals.

Forest Management

National forests along the Colorado River are losing their diversity and ecological

balance. A dense understory has choked out the hardy, fire-resistant ponderosa

pines that were typical of historic Western forests. Paired, then-and-now photographs reveal the open meadows and productive savannas that once dotted healthy

forests have been replaced by overcrowded forests choked by dense understories and

canopies. These crowded, unnatural stands are left susceptible to fiery infernos, insect infestation, disease and decay. They also degrade the quantity of water in river

systems. Only through careful, but active management can these destructive trends

be reversed.

An April, 1999 report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) to a congressional subcommittee concluded, ‘‘[T]he most extensive and serious problem related

to the health of national forests in the interior West is the overaccumulation of

vegetation, which has caused an increasing number of large, intense, uncontrollable,

and catastrophically destructive wildfires.’’ These fires threaten not only the forests

but human lives, safety, property, and infrastructure and the species that inhabit

the forests. These crowded forests are also depriving river systems of valuable water

in the arid West.

For over one hundred years, the relationship between forests and water has been

acknowledged. In fact, the 1897 Organic Act established the national forest system

for two primary purposes: to secure favorable supplies of timber and water (the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 provided other uses, but the United States

Supreme Court in U.S. v. New Mexico ruled they are merely secondary or supplemental to the primary purposes).

Since 1937, U.S. Forest Service scientists have been studying the relationship between forest management and water yields in the Fraser Experimental Forest near

Fraser, Colorado. Their studies conclude that water yields from the forests have

been decreasing due to dense stands with low rates of soil moisture and high rates

of evapotranspiration. The scale at which we are losing water resources is staggering. As an example, flows in the North Platte basin in Colorado are said to have

decreased by a staggering 185,000 acre feet per year (one acre foot is sufficient to

supply a family of four for a year) over the last 140 years due to excessive vegetative

growth. Without action, future yields in the basin are projected to diminish even

more!

The deficit results from the same mismanagement that fueled nearly seven million acres of catastrophic wildfires in the West last summer. These super-hot, unnatural wildfires have taken lives and property, ruined fish and wildlife habitat,

fouled the air with smoke and denuded water quality. The aftermath can persist for

years. Battling sediment and erosion from the 1996 Buffalo Creek fire in Colorado,

(which burned a mere 12,000 acres) has already cost the Denver Water Board $25

million.

Public lands management has far-reaching impacts on forest health, wildfire risk,

water, wildlife and even endangered species. Forest Service scientists warn the state

of our forests is not sustainable. To reverse this trend, policy makers should pursue

37

a cohesive strategy of thinning, prescribed fire and other treatments to address forest health problems. Sound science and proven techniques could improve the state

of forests and watersheds.

Conclusion

Across the West, our future is forever linked to our water. Given ever-increasing

demands, the basin requires more, not less, water storage. The seven Colorado River

Basin States have much in common. Perhaps most importantly, the states share a

common need to educate the public about the value of water resources and the risks

to water supplies.

Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will continue this dialogue with the seven

Colorado River Basin States as these important issues progress. Thank you for your

interest in this important issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Patricia Mulroy.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MULROY, GENERAL MANAGER,

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY

Ms. MULROY. Chairman Hanson, Chairman Calvert, on behalf of

Governor Guinn I’d like to thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here before you today. Chairman Hansen, it’s a

pleasure to be here in the state of Utah and a pleasure to see you

again.

I’d like to tell you that your water officials have been a delight

for us in Nevada to work with. Kathleen Clark and Larry Anderson, Don Christiansen and Ron Thompson over the years, they

have been great partners and wonderful friends to the State of Nevada.

I’d also like to thank you and your staff for your help in passing

the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. As you know,

southern Nevada has exploded in growth, and this Act has been of

great benefit to southern Nevada to help us manage our growth in

our community.

Congressman Calvert, it’s been some time since this Committee

has had a hearing on the Colorado River and one has been convened like that, and I’d like to thank you for your leadership. I

think the timing of this hearing is extremely appropriate, because

I think Herb expressed it very well, what we have here is a history

of states that have been cantankerous with one another and have

mastered the art of battle and of warfare, and have evolved in the

last 10 years to a group of seven states that have proven that they

can work together and solve some major issues, some would have

said 10 years ago would not have been possible.

Southern Nevada has been late coming to the table. And over the

past decade the Southern Nevada Water Authority, in partnership

with the Colorado River Commission under the leadership of its

Chairman, Richard Bunker, has aggressively been pursuing a

strategy to augment our measly 300,000 acre- feet of water that we

have in southern Nevada. As little as that amount of water is, it

represents 85 percent of the water in the—in southern Nevada,

which is 75 percent-plus of the population of the state of Nevada.

So you can appreciate the significance of this river system to those

of us in Nevada.

We realize that being the fastest growing community in the nation presents its own set of unique challenges. And even though

our—we’ve been very successful with water conservation and

38

wastewater reuse programs that can stretch our supply, we also realize that without additional water resources, we are going to be

out of water by the year 2007. Just like all the bones of the body

are connected, that’s the way the water supply in the West is all

interconnected.

We’ve labored for the past decade with the other Colorado River

Basin states through countless meetings to achieve a consensus

among the states around solutions that are innovative and bold.

And I’d like to point out at the outset that this has been a statedriven process, that we’ve appreciated the support and encouragement and partnership of the Department of Interior, but the solutions that my friends in the other states have laid out to you were

born from within the seven-states process. They have made it possible.

And I’ve often said that the Law of the River, as immovable as

some would paint it, really is a protection to all the states, that

none of the states can get rolled. If all seven states agree to a solution, then the Law of the River is flexible enough to allow for that

solution to occur. I think the interim surplus criteria that were just

recently signed and adopted stand testament to that. It wasn’t easy

for the states to come to an agreement around those interim surplus criteria.

And Nevada found itself in a unique position. On the one hand,

we sit on the shores of Lake Mead, and any subsidence or drop in

Lake Mead’s water levels would have had severe impacts on southern Nevada’s economy and, quite candidly, on our environment. On

the other hand, we stand to benefit by the interim surplus criteria.

And the reality of it is now that it is—assures southern Nevada’s

water supply through the year 2016. Because we too, just like California, will be allowed to use that water for M&I purposes and sustain southern Nevada’s existence.

One of the things that’s unique about the interim surplus criteria

is that for the first time it went opposite of what would be considered the traditional law of western water. For the first time M&I

uses have priority over first in time, first in right. And the interim

surplus criteria very carefully drafted around supplying municipal

and industrial water first.

Insofar as southern Nevada’s water future is dependent on the

interim surplus criteria, it also creates a unique relationship between ourselves and our friends in California. Because whether the

interim surplus criteria sustains or not through 2016 depends on

southern California’s success in reducing its use of its Colorado

River water along a very tight time frame, with trigger points

along the way in which its ongoing success and progress will be

measured. So we have a vested interest in California’s internal efforts to conserve water and for things such as the IID transfer to

San Diego to succeed.

And so we support your efforts, Representative Calvert, and

those of Senator Feinstein to pass the CALFED authorization bill,

but we would not presume to tell California which CALFED

projects should be built and which should not be built. But just like

the other states, we are watching very closely to make sure California does meet its triggers and achieves its targets on its way to

4.4.

39

The other thing that’s happened in the last decades for southern

Nevada has been a unique partnership with the State of Arizona.

And we intend over the next years to bank 1.2 million acre-feet in

Arizona’s groundwater basin.

I can tell you with all sincerity and honesty that 10 years ago,

when I first started in this, I would probably have been shot and

run out of the room had anyone suggested that we would be banking water in the state of Arizona; relationships were that tense at

the time. Over the last 10 years, however, the State of Arizona has

come forward and has, in great partnership with the State of Nevada, presented Nevada solutions that will solidify its water use

well—or its water supply well beyond the year 2040. Because in

banking that much water in the state of Arizona, we will be able

to use it through a forbearance agreement with the State of Arizona when we need it.

And when you look at southern Nevada’s water needs to the year

2050, it only represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the flows of the

Colorado River. So from a volume standpoint, southern Nevada’s

need for additional Colorado River water is truly infinitesimal, but

in terms of its significance to the state of Nevada, it is tremendous.

My friends in the other states mentioned the issues that are facing us in the future, and I would agree with them that the Mexican

delta is probably one of the more significant things that we’re going

to be facing. I think, sitting here today, none of us know what ultimately a solution for the delta would be. But one thing that I think

we can all agree to, and that is that if a solution is to be found,

that solution can only be found with the full cooperation and participation of the seven states. No one understands that river better

and no one understands the consequences of various solutions better than those of us in the states who live with this river system

and depend on it so heavily. So as we begin the discussions on the

delta on September 11th and 12th, I would also ask that the seven

states become an integral part of that process.

We also have the challenges of the endangered fish in the lower

basin, and recovering some of those is going to be very difficult, if

not impossible. We also know that we face...

The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t do it, just go ahead.

Ms. MULROY. We also know that we—that the challenge of finding a practical and an affordable solution for the Salton Sea looms

out there. As you can see, all of these stretch the normal confines

of what was traditionally perceived as the Colorado River supply.

But I also know that in this collection of people within the—from

the seven states, solutions can be found.

And so with that I would conclude, and thank you for this opportunity to testify, and just reiterate that I know that the innovative

solutions that I know are going to be needed for the future, not

only for southern Nevada and for California but for the delta and

for the environment as well, can be found from within the seven

states. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mulroy follows:]

40

Statement of Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water

Authority, Representing the State of Nevada

Introduction

Chairman Hansen, Chairman Calvert, I thank you for the invitation to testify

today. Chairman Hansen, it is a pleasure to come to Utah and to see you once

again. I am sincere when I say that Nevada has no better friends along the

Colorado River than your water officials in Utah. I have tremendous respect and

admiration for Kathleen Clark, Larry Anderson, Don Christiansen and Ron Thompson. They are leaders in the field of western water resources. I also want to thank

you and your staff for your help passing the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. It has been a great benefit to our community as we try to manage

our growth and I know of the significant role you played in its enactment.

Congressman Calvert, it has been some time since a Committee of the Congress

was interested enough in the Colorado River to convene a hearing such as this one.

Thank you for the leadership you have shown during your short tenure as Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee.

For over a decade, the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Colorado River

Commission of Nevada, which is chaired by Richard Bunker, have aggressively pursued a strategy to augment Nevada’s minuscule 300,000 acre foot entitlement to

Colorado river water. As the fastest growing community in the nation, we recognized that although our successful water conservation and wastewater reuse programs would only serve to stretch our supplies and that without additional resources, we would be out of water by 2007.

Do you remember the song that goes, ‘‘the head bone’s connected to the neck bone,

the neck bone’s connected to the back bone’’ etc. etc? Well that is the way it works

in water. Everything is connected. For that reason we have labored for almost a decade with the other Colorado River basin states through countless meetings to

achieve consensus among the seven basin states around solutions which are innovative and bold and still preserve the underlying fabric of the Law of the River. I want

to point out at the outset that this has been a state driven process. We have appreciated the support and encouragement of the Interior Department, the solutions

which have evolved all had their genesis within the seven state process and not in

Washington.

Interim Surplus Criteria and the California 4.4 Plan

Possibly the most difficult issue we have faced is the need for California to ween

itself away from overuse of the Colorado and live within its 4.4 million acre foot entitlement. This will require nearly 800,000 acre feet reduced deliveries from the

amount California has been regularly using. The seven states developed a proposal

which allows California an assured water supply for the next fifteen years during

which time it must make substantial progress with periodic milestones to reduce its

use of Colorado River water. This assured supply comes in the form of what we call

Interim Surplus Criteria, which in layman’s terms means that all the states agree

to allow the Secretary of the Interior as water master for the lower basin, to declare

each year for the next fifteen years, that there is enough surplus water in the reservoirs to release an extra amount above the lower basin’s entitlement of 7.5 million

acre feet. The surplus amount that is to be released each year depends upon the

elevation of Lake Mead.

This remarkable plan was signed by the Secretary of Interior last January and

for the first time schedules the delivery of this additional water based upon type

of uses, with Municipal and Industrial needs first, then agriculture, rather than on

the old western water law doctrine of prior appropriation or put another way, first

in time is first in right.

Nevada benefits significantly from these surplus deliveries. Because we are an

M&I delivery, the Interim Surplus Criteria will all but ensure an adequate water

supply for all of southern Nevada’s needs through 2016. Nevada shares with California these interim surplus supplies and therefore are vitally concerned that California meet its milestone targets to ramp down usage of Colorado River water. If

California fails to do so, we will lose our assured water supply rights along with

them. In other words, we are connected to California at the hip bone.

For that reason, Nevada has a vested interest in the success of California internal

efforts to conserve water such as the IID to San Diego transfer as well as to develop

additional sources of supply for southern California. We understand the relationship

between the Salton Sea issue and the IID–San Diego transfer and we are supportive

of the proposal we have reviewed to provide federal funding to assist with the

Salton Sea environmental studies and other projects needed to ensure the success

of that water transfer.

41

To the same end we support your efforts Rep. Calvert, along with those of Senator

Dianne Feinstein to pass a CALFED authorization bill providing for funding for

water development projects throughout California. These projects will help California reduce its over dependence upon the Colorado. Nevada is not going to presume to tell you Californians which CALFED water projects to build or not to build,

that is up to you to fight out amongst yourself.

Groundwater Banking

Another innovative solution for Nevada’s problems came from Arizona and is

called water banking. This concept was discussed for years by the seven states and

with the Bureau of Reclamation. Just last week on July 3 Nevada and Arizona

signed an agreement that will allow Nevada to store or ‘‘bank’’ unused Arizona entitlement in the ground water aquifers within Arizona. Over the next decade or so

before Arizona’s own needs require the full use of its Colorado river entitlement, we

hope to be able to bank up to 1.2 million acre feet which we can use in the future

as needed. This banking opportunity is also available for California and even the

federal government for some of its needs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Nevada’s water future looks far more secure today than it did ten

years ago. This is the result of some significant achievements brought about by the

seven basin states working together along with a supportive Interior Department.

There is more to do. California has just begun its difficult task of conserving and

finding enough water to meet its needs. We face significant and important environmental challenges such as the endangered fishes recovery program, finding a practical and affordable Salton Sea solution and addressing the international consequences associated with the Mexican Delta. I am confident in our ability to find

more innovative solutions, working together, connected. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Mutz.

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP MUTZ, UPPER COLORADO RIVER

COMMISSIONER, STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. MUTZ. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee and the

Subcommittee, my name is Philip Mutz. I am Upper Colorado

River Commissioner for the State of New Mexico and represent the

State on the Upper Colorado River Commission, which is an interstate agency created by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact

of 1949. The Compact—the Commission is charged with administration of the Compact and represents the four states on matters

concerning operations of the Colorado River.

Someone once observed that no river is asked to do so much with

so little water as has the Colorado. Every acre-foot of water of the

river’s average annual flow has been apportioned and, as the

Chairman indicated earlier, every acre-foot is used and reused.

The Colorado River supplies water indirectly or directly to more

than 25 million acre—or 25 million people located both within its

drainage boundaries and without its drainage boundaries due to

the large transbasin aqueducts that transport the river water outside the basin. With so many—much reliance for so many people,

it might appear that management and distribution of the waters of

the Colorado River for the next decades is somewhat predetermined. All the works—or at least most all the works are now in

place to distribute its waters, and with the experience of existing

management, it would appear that much of the future administration of the river is merely to improve efficiency. The implication

may be then that change should not be effected, but that’s not realistic. Change has become necessary, and will continually need to be

42

implemented to accommodate the growing and differing demands

placed on the river.

Among the challenges of the past several decades has been to accommodate environmental needs of endangered species. The recovery programs for endangered fishes in the Upper Basin and the effort to establish a multiconservation—a multispecies conservation

program in the Lower Basin are recent examples of changes

brought about to accommodate differing needs.

New Mexico is generally satisfied with the progress and results

of most of the programs and initiatives initiated in the Colorado

River Basin in recent years. The Interim Surplus Guidelines is a

very important step to manage available supply to meet the growing demand on the river. Coupled with California’s Colorado River

Water Use Plan to step-down its current use, these two major accomplishments resulted from the collaborative efforts of many people, and likely would not have succeeded if those individuals involved had not recognized the need to cooperate to achieve a workable solution rather than rely on an unpredictable result via the

litigation process to resolve differences.

The other six states of the Colorado River Basin have insisted

that the Surplus Guidelines be an interim measure and that benchmarks be included to measure California’s progress in reducing its

current use of Colorado River water. The continued implementation

of the Surplus Guidelines is entirely dependent upon that progress

by California to reduce its annual use of Colorado River water. Implementation of the steps necessary to reduce its use have taken

and will continue to take time, a concentrated effort, and a large

investment of money. We support California and its water use

agencies involved in these efforts.

As indicated by the previous commenters, an emerging issue concerns efforts by some to increase the flow of the Colorado River in

its limitrophe section and its associated delta in Mexico to restore

and preserve the riparian and estuarine ecology. The International

Boundary Water Commission, through its respective Commissioners of the United States and Mexico, have executed Minute

306. The Minute states the intent of the two governments to establish a framework for cooperation in studies looking toward recommendations for the work needed.

By letter dated June 18, 2001, the Governor’s representatives of

the seven Colorado River Basin states have directed letters to the

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State expressing

their views on and requesting a meeting to discuss emerging issues

on the Colorado River delta. The letters noted the United States

has been in full compliance with its obligations under the treaty,

and pointed out that there is no existing or anticipated action within the United States, including operations under the Interim Surplus Guidelines, that would result in any violation of any obligation

under the treaty.

The letter stressed that any proposal to manage or deliver water

for any purpose in the delta must be undertaken pursuant to the

Law of the River and must not enhance, diminish, or abrogate any

provision of the treaty or the Law of the River.

Further, the letter requested that the United States recognize

the legal authority of the Colorado River Basin states over the

43

appropriation and management of their apportioned water and the

important role of the states in the operation and management of

the river established by Federal law.

What does New Mexico get out of all this management of the

Colorado River in the Lower Basin? The competition for water has

been a fact of life for New Mexicans for several generations and it

continues. More than 80 years ago, New Mexico achieved its first

goal for a reliable, though at that time not completely defined,

share of the Colorado River by becoming part of the Colorado River

Compact. Then about 50 years ago, a circumscribed share of the

water available to the Upper Basin was apportioned in perpetuity

in New Mexico under the Upper Basin Compact.

The current use of Upper Basin water in New Mexico by authorized projects will require about 90 percent of New Mexico’s apportioned share of its supply now reasonably available in the basin.

Quantification of Indian water right claims in the San Juan

River, which is the primary source of water for New Mexico from

the Colorado River, is a key element to ensure reliability to both

Indian and non-Indian water users in New Mexico.

Two Indian water rights settlements have been completed in the

San Juan River Basin in Colorado, but remain to be fully implemented pending completion of the Animas-La Plata project. Although these settlements are in Colorado and use Colorado’s water,

they’re important to New Mexico downstream water users because

a differing settlement could adversely affect their supply.

Also in New Mexico, the claims of the Jicarilla Apache Nation

have been settled; however, not all that water has yet been put to

use. The water right claims of the Navajo Nation remain to be

quantified, and they are quite large. The Nation and the State of

New Mexico have been involved in formal discussions for some time

now, and we believe considerable progress has been achieved.

New Mexico also has considerable area in the western part of the

state that is in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River, in the Little

Colorado and the Gila River drainages. The available supply in the

Little Colorado River is very meager and essentially developed. Use

of water from the Gila River and its tributaries in New Mexico was

apportioned by decree of the United States Supreme Court in 1964,

but that apportionment was only sufficient to cover existing uses.

New Mexico was able to secure recognition in the decree that

should conditions prevail in the future that would provide for additional water, the decree could be adapted, and that additional

water can be provided under the Central Arizona Project Act of

1968, which authorized an additional 18,000 acre-feet of water per

year for use by New Mexico, subject to the provisions of the legislation. That supply is vital to the future of that area and must be

preserved.

This discussion is intended to convey that New Mexico has much

to benefit from the Colorado River. To ensure the availability and

reliability of water in this state, we’re committed to guarding that

supply and to putting it to beneficial use at the earliest practical

time.

I’d like to stress that the Law of the River, however complex

some might characterize it, has resulted primarily from an effort

of those individuals who recognized the need for a basic foundation

44

on which the apportionments and the operation and administration

of the river are built. I believe the seven basin states have established a collaborative working relationship to approach the issues

that face us in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mutz follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mutz. Mr. Davidson, can you get

that mike over there?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DAVIDSON, GOVERNOR’S

REPRESENTATIVE, WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and

honorable Members of the Committee and Subcommittee, on behalf

of myself and on behalf of Governor Geringer, I’d like to thank you

for the opportunity to address you today.

54

My compadres that have gone before me, and I can safely say

they are compadres these days, a little different scenario than we

might have encountered, as has been indicated to you in the past,

several years ago, but now we have a very close and good working

relationship. They have addressed the main issues that are confronting us, and so I’m going to utilize the luxury of going last. And

I’m going to heed the Chairman’s suggestion that I summarize my

comments, and I think I can be fairly brief.

I am the Commissioner for Wyoming on the Upper Colorado

River Compact Commission. I also, in another different life, I

guess, am also the lead litigator for Wyoming in interstate water

disputes. I can certainly attest firsthand to the difference between

the litigation route which we have just hopefully concluded with respect to a water dispute over the flows of the North Platte River

with the State of Nebraska. After in excess of $20 million expended

by each state in prelitigation costs, we finally wound up on the

courthouse steps, and hopefully resolved the dispute before we ever

actually opened the courtroom doors.

That, in contrast to the relationship that has been developed

with the other six states with respect to the Colorado River, I think

makes a very profound statement as to the desirability and the

utility of working together with our compadres, working together

with the other basin states to try to reach the solutions, the solutions that allow the Law of the River to be flexible into the future.

And I will state that the main theme of my testimony to you

today is one that I’m merely echoing from many of the others, is

the reason that the interim surplus criteria were able to be

achieved, the reason that we had success like we did and didn’t

have to have the kind of litigation that I’ve referenced with respect

to Wyoming and Nebraska is because of the basic premise that was

recognized by each of the seven basin states, including California,

as we’re not going to mess with the entitlements under the Law of

the River.

California didn’t come into the process contending that it needed

to change its entitlement from 4.4 million acre-foot a year, it came

into the process with the view that, we’re over, we’ve got a problem, we got to address the problem, we need your help; we’re not

trying to take your entitlement, Wyoming, we’re not trying to take

your apportionment, Colorado, we’re trying to address the problem

of getting back to 4.4 million acre-feet; we don’t deny that that’s

what our entitlement is, we don’t deny that Wyoming has its entitlement, that the Upper Basin states have their entitlement, that

all of the states have their entitlements; what we need to do is try

to work out a solution. And that’s what we were able to achieve

with the interim surplus criteria in the California 4.4 Plan.

I think Pat put it best. The reason that the deal came together

is nobody was in jeopardy of getting rolled. I can assure you that

Wyoming, and I know my friends from the other states, are not

going to allow themselves to get rolled, and whether it’s $20 million

or $200 million that has to get spent, if someone’s going to take one

of the state’s entitlements under the Law of the River, it’s going

to be a long, protracted, agonizing litigation.

Again, the reason that this deal came together, the interim surplus deal came together is because that concept was maintained,

55

and the states were provided the certainty that they were provided

under the Law of the River.

I was encouraged to hear the Chairman in his opening remarks

state that clearly water won’t be provided for some of these other

uses without the concurrence of the seven basin states. Certainly

that is Wyoming’s view, certainly that is the view of the other

basin states.

I guess in quick summary, we have a long history of fighting

hard for our water in Wyoming. This procedure has resulted I believe in a much better, much preferable end result and process; it

provides flexibility that is not provided through litigation. And

though I do love to litigate these big cases, this—the result that

comes out from this kind of approach certainly is a preferable result to the 300 pages of settlement documents that we have in the

Nebraska versus Wyoming litigation.

So if I can leave you with three concepts that are very important

to the State of Wyoming and I believe all of the basin states. One

is preserve the certainty of the Law of the River; and that is, more

emphatically, don’t mess with our apportionments. And finally, we

will do all that we can to ensure that California meets its obligations and that we all can meet these new environmental, Mexican,

and other requirements for the future, while maintaining the preservation of the certainty of the Law of the River.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]

Statement of Thomas J. Davidson, Wyoming Commissioner, Upper Colorado

River Commission, and Deputy Attorney General, Wyoming Attorney

General’s Office

This testimony provides the perspective and views of the State of Wyoming

concerning ongoing and prospective Colorado River water use, reservoir operations and basin management activities in the context of a House Resources Committee field hearing. Wyoming is generally pleased with the

current and recently implemented collaborative and cooperative efforts that

the seven States are conducting collectively and in concert with the Department of the Interior. The implementation of the Interim Surplus Operating

Guidelines for the Colorado River System in early 2001 was an important

step in implementing a comprehensive plan to reduce California’s long-term

dependence on the Colorado River. Management of the Colorado River in

this new century involves not only reservoir operations but environmental

management efforts of varying types and scopes. Wyoming has long been

a participant in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and a

partner in the collaborative Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Program. These and other efforts, Wyoming believes,

are critically important to Wyoming’s ability to continue to develop its compact-apportioned water supplies in the future.

Chairman Hansen and Members of the Committee and Subcommittees, thank you

for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the State of Wyoming at today’s field hearing concerning management of the Colorado River. My name is Thomas J. Davidson.

I am the State of Wyoming’s Commissioner on the Upper Colorado River Commission and Deputy Attorney General of the State of Wyoming. The Upper Colorado

River Commission is an interstate administrative agency created by the Upper

Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. Since its inception, the Commission (made

up of Commissioners appointed by the Governor of each Upper Division State [Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming] and one appointed by the President of the

United States) has actively participated in the development, utilization and conservation of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin. The Commission was

created to administer the apportionment of the waters of the Upper Colorado River

Basin system and represents the Upper Basin States in consultations with the Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to the operations of the Colorado River.

56

Long known as the ‘‘Lifeblood of the West,’’ the Colorado River is often referred

to as the most intensely regulated and over appropriated river in the country. Neither the biggest nor the longest river in the West, it is among the most disputed

rivers in the world. The Colorado River has played a crucial role in this country’s history, a role often overlooked or misunderstood. Perhaps no other river has been

asked to do so much with so little. The Law of the River was born out of the necessity to provide secure water supplies. It is the product of two interstate compacts,

a U.S. Supreme Court decree, and a treaty with Mexico allocating the River’s water.

It reflects the fact that, for over 100 years, the financial strength and national authority of the Congress have been absolutely necessary to avoid interstate and intergovernmental disputes and to secure economic stability for the entire Colorado River

Basin.

Before the Federal Government could construct a dam on the lower Colorado

River, and as a result of California’s increasing diversions, the states with an interest in the Colorado’s waters needed to sort out their rights. The upstream states

feared that a storage facility that made water available downstream before they

could put their share to use upstream might form a basis for claims of appropriative

rights in the water by downstream states. Appropriative rights are based on the

rule ‘‘first in time, first in right.’’ Likewise, the downstream beneficiaries of such a

storage facility feared California’s existing lead in their race toward development.

It appeared that a resolution could only be achieved either by a suit in the United

States Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction over disputes between states,

or by an agreement of the parties. The seven basin states chose the latter. The significance of the decision to utilize the more flexible interstate compact option, even

though this method had never before been used to allocate waters of an interstate

river, was realized in 1922. In that year, the Supreme Court decided Wyoming v.

Colorado (259 U.S. 419), which, in part, utilized the doctrine of prior appropriation

to allocate rights to water across state lines.

Wyoming’s State Engineer (and later Governor) Frank C. Emerson served as Wyoming’s Commissioner on the Colorado River Commission that negotiated the compact. It is very clear that Emerson, as Wyoming’s negotiator, recognized the very

long-term perspective that this seven-state agreement necessarily had to take and

the certainty that it would provide. Emerson noted in his Sixteenth Biennial Report

of the State Engineer of Wyoming (1921–1922): ‘‘The present apportionment of the use of 7,500,000 acre feet per annum to

the Upper Basin is ‘‘in perpetuity.’’ These two words are of especial significance as their use means that Wyoming and the other States of the Upper

Division will find water supply available for the developments of the future

whenever our projects may become economically feasible of undertaking,

and whether the time may be in the near future or a century or more from

now.’’

The seven states recognized the importance of the Colorado River at the time of

the Compact and correctly understood that the River would become ever increasingly important over time. The Compact provided a means to recognize the profound

differences between the development the two segments -- Upper and Lower -- of the

Colorado River Basin. On page 19 of Emerson’s report on the Compact to the Wyoming State Legislature, he succinctly noted:

‘‘All can realize the natural physical situation which causes the division of

the river into two great basins; that the economic conditions that apply to

the two basins are entirely different, and that therefore a division of water

between the two basins is a very logical plan; that the additional development of the Green River and the Little Snake River basins in Wyoming will

be very tardy as compared with development in California; that if proper

agreement can now be had between the great conflicting interests upon the

Colorado River this accomplishment would be most desirable for all.’’

Wyoming’s leaders and citizens believe that the Compact really means what it

says -- that Wyoming will, to again cite our Compact negotiator, ‘‘find water supply

available for the development of our future whenever our projects may become economically feasible of undertaking, and whether that time be in the near future or

a century or more from now.’’

The State of Wyoming has recently engaged in river basin planning for each of

the seven major river basins in the State. The intent of this water-planning program

is to provide accurate, contemporary water information to enable state and local decision makers to manage water resources efficiently, maintain a water data inventory and project future water demands so the state can prepare for the effects of

growth. In addition, Wyoming believes this planning process will provide the State

with information to assist in responding to the mandates of federal legislation and

regulation. Under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, Wyoming was

57

apportioned 14 percent of the total quantity available for use each year in the Upper

Colorado River Basin as apportioned by the 1922 Colorado River Compact, after deducting the 50,000 acre-feet per year apportioned to Arizona. Using this percentage

and making several best-case assumptions, Wyoming has estimated its probable

long-term available water supply from the Green River and its tributaries is 833,000

acre-feet per year. In our Green River Basin Water Plan, we have estimated our

current, normal year uses to be approximately 611,200 acre-feet per year. Depending on whether a moderate or high growth forecast scenario is assumed, Wyoming’s present estimate of our consumptive use of the Upper Colorado River system’s wa- ters will be between 683,000 and 767,000 acre-feet per year in the year 2030. In

the instance of the high growth forecast scenario being used, Wyoming would therefore be consuming about 92 percent of its share of the water resources of the

Colorado River by 2030.

On account of the certainty created by the Compact, the development of the large

projects that has occurred in the lower basin has not jeopardized the water supply

remaining for future Wyoming water development activities nor has it precluded or

impeded additional beneficial consumptive uses of water in our State. The Compact

did, and has continued to, provide ‘‘broad basic principles for the equitable apportionment and use of the waters of the Colorado River System...’’ (cited from page

18 of the Emerson Report on the Compact). Consistent with principles that were

recognized in Wyoming from the initiation of its water law (first as a territory of

the United States and later, by virtue of the Wyoming Constitution), beneficial consumptive use was adopted as the measure of the allocation of the waters of the

Colorado River. It is Wyoming’s belief that management of the Colorado River in

the 21st Century must continue to rely on the preservation of sovereignty, integrity

and self-determination of welfare, in short, the certainty, which has been afforded

to Wyoming and each of the seven Colorado River Basin states through the legal

framework of the Law of the River.

Contrary to popular perception, California and the other Lower Division States of

Arizona and Nevada have not been using ‘‘Wyoming’s water.’’ The Colorado River

Compact of 1922 allocated to the Upper Division States, which include Wyoming,

a perpetual right of development. It avoided the untenable situation where we in

Wyoming might have been forced into a race for development with California (under

the application of the prior appropriation doctrine on an interstate basis), requiring

us to hoard water and prevent California from getting it. The Compact preserves

our future economic opportunity and our ability to rationally plan for our future

here in Wyoming.

This interstate agreement expressly preserved state-created water rights systems.

It is the foundation upon which the large federal reservoirs, including Lake Mead,

Lake Powell, Blue Mesa, Navajo and Flaming Gorge, were built and are operated.

These reservoirs hold water for use in the Upper Basin and for delivery to the

Lower Basin. The security for future development provided by the Compact, and operating flexibility of Flaming Gorge and the other Upper Colorado River Basin reservoirs, allows for water to be managed in environmentally enhancing ways. Were

Glen Canyon Dam and the others not in place, the situation would be entirely different with regard to our ability to engage in many ongoing cooperative efforts, including the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and the Upper Colorado

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Just as Emerson drew attention of the ‘‘especial significance’’ of the words ‘‘in perpetuity’’ in his report to the Wyoming Legislature, any discussion of the future, from

Wyoming’s perspective, must be laid upon the foundation of continuity assured by

the administration of the provisions of the Colorado River Compact. That future

must continue to provide the certainty of a water future for Wyoming’s citizens dependent upon development of our share of the water resources of the Colorado River

Basin.

While a primary intent of the Compact was to provide certainty of a future water

supply from the River for each of the affected States, many Federal statutes and

policies affecting water and related natural resources use and management can and

do affect Wyoming’s and the other Basin States’ abilities to use and develop additional water. Thus, the search for certainty that was being sought in negotiating the

Colorado River Compact is still a paramount factor in our present day views and

concerns with regard to Colorado River management. Among the federal statutes

and policies of concern are the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean

Water Act (CWA), for example. Further, the manner in which these laws, regulations and policies are administered by the many federal agencies, each having different and often conflicting missions and jurisdictions, can profoundly impact Wyoming’s water developmental difficulties. Accordingly, Wyoming has found it necessary to assist in developing, implementing and to continue to be involved in many

58

programs, collaborative activities and multi-state and multi-entity endeavors. We

view our participation in these collaborative processes as being essential and necessary to avoid further and future impediments to developing our Compact-apportioned water supplies. In my testimony today, I wish to draw attention to several

of the major efforts underway and to provide Wyoming’s perspective on the progress

of those efforts and their significance.

CALIFORNIA’S COLORADO RIVER WATER USE PLAN

Wyoming is encouraged by the progress presently being made by the Colorado

River water users within the State of California, who are endeavoring to implement

an enforceable program to reduce California’s dependence on Colorado River water

over its basic entitlement. If implemented as envisioned, California’s plan to gradually step-down from its current use of over 5.2 million acre-feet (‘‘maf’’) of Colorado

River water to its basic apportionment amount of 4.4 maf over a fifteen year period

will be an extremely significant accomplishment.

Wyoming has been directly and substantially involved since its onset in 1991 in

the ongoing dialogue which and effort that will result in California reducing its annual dependence on the Colorado River to its basic apportionment level in ‘‘normal’’

water supply years. Just as California’s dependence on using more than 4.4 MAF

did not occur ‘‘overnight,’’ implementing the steps to reduce its use are taking, and

will continue to take, considerable time, investment and hard work. We heartily

support these ongoing efforts.

The California Plan works by conserving California’s agricultural water and redirecting that water for urban use. The Surplus Guidelines adopted this year allow

water anticipated to be surplus to reservoir storage to flow to California for 15

years, while the conservation/transfer programs are being implemented. This

‘‘bridge’’ of surplus water allows California to reduce its demand at an achievable

pace, without economic dislocation. The continuation of the Surplus Guidelines is

contingent upon California Plan progress, including completing a binding agreement

among the California agencies to implement conservation/transfer programs, and

achieving defined conservation /transfer targets by specified dates.

The California Colorado River Water Use Plan (‘‘California Plan’’) is dependent

upon using Colorado River water made available from surplus declarations on the

Colorado River as a way to ease the State’s transition to living within its basic apportionment. The other Colorado River Basin States have been insistent that

changes to the reservoir operating criteria on the Colorado River to accommodate

California must only be an interim measure while California steps down its

Colorado River water use. The Six States insisted that California demonstrate a

tangible commitment to reduce its water use before entertaining discussions of reservoir operating criteria that might facilitate that reduction. That commitment has

been demonstrated in several ways, including the appropriation by the California

State Legislature of over $238 million dollars for the lining of the All–American and

Coachella Canals.

Further, it seems prudent to address why the Interim Surplus Guidelines were

needed and what would have happened in their absence. ‘‘Surplus water’’ is available to agencies that have contracted with the Secretary for delivery of surplus

water, for use when their water demand exceeds their basic entitlement, and when

the excess demand cannot be met within the basic apportionment of their state. By

adopting these specific interim surplus guidelines, the Secretary will be able to provide California users of surplus Colorado River water a greater degree of predictability and certainty with respect to the likely existence, or lack thereof, of surplus

conditions on the River in a given year. Adoption of the interim surplus guidelines

recognizes California’s plan to reduce reliance on surplus deliveries, will assist California in moving toward using only its basic apportionment during years of ‘‘normal’’

water supply (as determined in the AOP process) and softens the impacts during

the transition period and avoids hindering such efforts.

Importantly, continuing implementation of the interim surplus guidelines is entirely dependent on progress by California in reducing its dependence on the

Colorado River. The surplus guidelines will be used to identify the specific amount

of surplus water which may be made available in a given year, based upon factors

such as the elevation of Lake Mead, during a period within which demand for surplus Colorado River water will be reduced. The increased level of predictability with

respect to the prospective existence and quantity of surplus water will assist in

planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus Colorado River water

pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. Without the guidelines, there would be no

capability for a transition period during which California can and will reduce its

Colorado River dependence and use ‘‘rather, there would be surplus until it is gone

59

and all of a sudden California would have to cut back. This would create severe

hardship that would have attendant economic impacts in California.

REDUCING THE RIVER’S SALINITY BENEFITS ALL USERS

Since the enactment of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974

(Public Law 93–320), the seven Basin States and the Federal Government have

been engaged in a basin-wide program to manage the salinity concentration of the

waters of the Colorado River. The importance of implementing basin-wide water

quality standards, as opposed to the very common approach of instituting Stateline

standards, should be recognized at the onset of any discussion of what has been perhaps the nation’s most successful non-point water pollution control program. Improving the quality of water received and available for use in the Lower Colorado

River Basin is not dependent upon curtailing in any manner the development of

compact-apportioned water in the Upper Colorado River Basin states.

All states regulate water quality constituents related to health concerns. Other

constituents may be regulated for aesthetic and economic reasons pursuant to the

provisions of the Clean Water Act. This is the case with salinity in the Colorado

River System, where the seven States who share the River’s water adopted basinwide water quality standards in 1974. For all practical purposes, the terms ‘‘total

dissolved solids’’ (TDS) and ‘‘salinity’’ are synonymous and are used interchangeably.

High salinity levels make it difficult to grow winter vegetables and popular fruits.

Water containing high TDS will more quickly corrode plumbing and water-using appliances and industrial equipment. Highly saline water has limited use for irrigation

of agricultural crops and landscaping vegetation. Economic impacts (reduced crop

yield, higher drainage and soil leaching requirements, water treatment costs, equipment repair and replacement, etc.) from salinity damages associated with dealing

with highly saline water in the Lower Colorado River Basin are currently estimated

at $330 million per year, while those suffered in Mexico are presently unquantified.

About one half of the salinity in the Colorado comes from natural sources and the

other half from human uses of the water and activities near the river. Near its

headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, the salinity concentration of the Colorado

River is typically 50 milligrams per liter (mg/l) or less. Large amounts of salt load

are added as the River flows downstream. At Hoover Dam, the River delivers about

9 million tons of dissolved salts a year. Upon reaching the last diversion point in

the United States at Imperial Dam, concentration frequently exceeds 800 mg/l.

When Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974,

primary responsibility for the federal program was given to the Secretary of the Interior, with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) being instructed to investigate

and build several salinity control units. Amendments to the Act in 1984 mandated

the creation of comprehensive salinity control programs by the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The USDA has instituted a

highly successful, voluntary on-farm salinity control program which provides for voluntary replacement of incidental fish and wildlife values foregone due to the installation of on-farm salinity reduction measures. The 1984 amendments to the Act

(P.L. 98–569) also directed the BLM to implement comprehensive salinity control activities on the large land area administered by BLM within the Basin and, further,

directed the Secretary of the Interior to give preference to those projects that reduce

salinity for the least cost per ton of salinity control.

In 1996, the Farm Bill (the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act,

P.L. 106–20) combined the USDA’s Colorado River Salinity Control Program and

three other conservation programs into the new Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP). Since that time, funding for the USDA’s salinity control efforts has

dramatically decreased, despite the efforts of Wyoming and the other Basin States

urging USDA to adequately fund these important basin-wide water quality maintenance program efforts. With this Congress enacting a new farm bill to go into effect

for the next fiscal year (2002), we are quite hopeful that the Congress will see fit

to direct the Department of Agriculture to give it Colorado River salinity control

program the emphasis and funding which the Basin States believe it deserves.

While we are generally supportive of the concept that government closest to the

people is better, in the case of the USDA’s EQIP there is a disconnect. EQIP’s locally led, locally derived resource management priorities are both displacing and

preempting salinity reduction program activities that have both international and

basin-wide significance and importance. Working experience gained with EQIP has

shown that local working groups and state technical committees are unable and cannot be expected to maintain the ‘‘national perspective’’ regarding maintenance of

basin-wide water quality standards and a water quality commitment to the Republic

of Mexico. Further, the great majority of the water quality improvements occurring

as a direct result of the CRSCP irrigation water management practices are accruing

60

1The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report on the status of implementation of the

comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management directed by Sec. 203(b)(3) of the Colorado River

Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1593). The report shall provide specific information on individual projects and funding allocation. The report shall be transmitted to the Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives

no later than June 30, 2000.

to beneficiaries far downstream (in Arizona, California and Nevada) and distant

from the point at which the practices are being implemented (in Colorado, Utah and

Wyoming). EQIP’s locally led process also does not provide a forum for the many

municipal and agricultural interests in the Lower Colorado River Basin who are directly benefiting from the salinity reduction efforts to engage in dialogue with local

working groups and state technical committees in the Basin’s upstream states.

As noted above, the Bureau of Land Management was directed by Congress in the

1984 amendments to the Salinity Control Act to implement a comprehensive program to reduce salt loading to the Colorado River System. Nearly 40 percent of the

Basin’s land area is BLM-administered public land. Through improved management

practices, there is tremendous opportunity for the BLM to decrease salt contributions from public lands. Public Law 106–489, enacted to increase the funding authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation’s basin-wide salinity control program, also

contained a directive to the BLM to report to the Congress on the status of its salinity control program 1. We appreciate the interest the Resource Committee has

shown in this program by including this directive to the BLM in that law.

Frankly, we have been disappointed for many years at the lack of emphasis that

BLM places upon its responsibility to implement a comprehensive salinity control

program. In its agency section of the Federal Accomplishments Report to the

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council (created by Section 204 of

P.L. 93–320) dated October 2000, BLM began with the following: ‘‘The Bureau of

Land Management recognizes and is committed to its role in reducing the mobilization of salt from public lands. As in past years, we undertake this responsibility

through the multitude of individual management decisions that are made within

each BLM jurisdiction. While salinity is not segregated as a specific program, it is

affected by almost all other land management decisions that are made’’ (emphasis

added). This acknowledgment that the BLM does not segregate salinity as a specific

program is contrary to BLM’s Land Use Planning Manual which states: ‘‘The

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, 43 U.S.C. 1593, requires a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from BLM

lands.’’ How can the BLM be meeting the directive, recognized in its own agency

planning manual, requiring ‘‘... a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions...’’ through efforts, explicitly acknowledged in its October 2000 progress

report that are not even ‘‘... segregated as a specific program?’’ This presents a clear

incongruity. Either BLM has a salinity control program or it does not. We sincerely

hope that the BLM will address this incongruity in its report to your Committee,

and we look forward to working with your Committee on this matter.

Ongoing support of the Congress is necessary to maintain the needed implementation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The Program is a carefully designed series of sequentially staged elements that are only put in place as

needed. The Program’s success is dependent upon continued funding by Congress of

the federal portions of the three agency’s successful, cost-sharing, salinity-reduction

partnership programs. Greater levels of Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) funding dedicated to the Colorado River Salinity Control Program for implementing on-farm salinity reduction practices would assist in reducing the backlog

of USDA projects awaiting federal cost-share financial assistance. More focus on the

lack of initiative and accountability on the part of the BLM to actually conduct a

comprehensive salinity control program is warranted.

MANAGING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND WATER DEVELOPMENT CONFLICTS IS CRITICAL

Having a compact-apportioned water supply remaining available for further use

and development is of no practical benefit whatsoever if users cannot obtain federal

permits (be they CWA Section 404 dredge and fill permits, right of way or special

use permits) on account of ‘‘jeopardy’’ biological opinions rendered under Section 7

of the federal Endangered Species Act. An impasse occurred in the early 1980s between further water development and administration of the federal ESA, with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking the position that any additional depletion of

the waters of the Upper Colorado River system would jeopardize the continued existence of the endanger native fish species. Faced with this tremendous problem,

water users, the States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and involved federal

61

agencies, along with power consumer and conservation community interest groups

negotiated, and in 1988, initiated, an innovative, collaborative partnership program

to resolve these difficult endangered species and water management and development conflicts. The Program’s negotiators were very clear in establishing dual objectives for the Program: allow further water development to occur while carrying out

the mandate of the ESA to recover, and delist, the four Upper Colorado River endangered fish species. A sister program was initiated in the San Juan River Basin

in 1992.

On behalf of the State of Wyoming, let me take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hansen and members of the Resources Committee for their leadership and support in enacting H.R. 2348, which became Public Law 106–392 on October 30, 2000.

This Act’s authorization of funding for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue as a

cost-sharing partner in implementing the endangered fish recovery implementation

programs for the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basins was critically

important to continuing the success that these programs are enjoying.

As you may be aware, then Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, in the last of what

had become annual addresses to the Colorado River Water Users Association, on December 14, 2000 praised the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program as an ‘‘ongoing success story.’’ Secretary Babbitt stated that Public Law 106–

392 could provide a pattern for both funding and collaboration for the Lower

Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) currently being

developed. While we recognize that the levels of cost and commitment required in

conducting endangered species recovery programs such as the Upper Colorado River

Endangered Fish Recovery Program are very high, we believe that in the current

climate, these types of approaches are the only viable approach available. We in Wyoming will work with your Committee in seeking refinements and revisions to the

Endangered Species Act that can facilitate, simplify and generally improve collaborative, species recovery programs. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, it is our view that revisions to the ESA must recognize that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot accomplish recovery of species by itself. Reform of ESA must include this acknowledgment and provide more meaningful and greater roles for the states.

INCREASING PRESSURE FOR ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLIES TO MEET

COLORADO RIVER DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL USES

Over the past several years, those seeking to increase the flow of the Colorado

River at its mouth in the Gulf of California have become more vocal and visible in

their calls for more water for maintaining and ‘‘restoring’’ the ecological values of

the estuary area at the Colorado River’s terminus. On December 12, 2000, the International Boundary and Water Commissioners (IBWC) for the United States and

Mexico executed Minute 306 entitled ‘‘Conceptual Framework for United States—

Mexico Studies for Future Recommendations Concerning the Riparian and Estuarine Ecology of the of the Colorado River and Its Associated Delta.’’

The Minute indicates the intent of the United States and Mexico to establish a

framework for cooperation for developing studies and recommendations for preservation of the riparian and estuarine ecology of the Colorado River Delta. This work

will be carried out through an existing binational technical task force that was established to facilitate such studies. Further, the IBWC will establish a forum for the

exchange of information and advice among government and non-government organizations in the United States and Mexico.

As a follow-on to that agreement, the IBWC, working in concert with small planning committees in both the United States and Mexico, is completing arrangements

to hold a Symposium on Colorado River Delta ecosystem issues on September 11–

12, 2001 in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The intent of this symposium is to

provide United States and Mexican stakeholders with ‘‘baseline information’’ on the

Delta. The two country’s planning committees have agreed that the symposium will

address three topical subjects. These are: 1) the legal framework for water use and

allocation in both countries; 2) the water conveyance systems in the Lower Colorado

River Basin from Imperial Dam to the Gulf of California; and 3) the ecological/scientific knowledge based on existing studies and research of the Colorado River Delta

ecosystem and its geographical area. We believe that it is important that the upcoming symposium be on the Congressional ‘‘radar screen’’ and that you are aware there

are numerous interests pressing the Federal Government to provide additional

Colorado River water to Mexico. It is, of course, problematic, to consider that -- even

if there were additional sources of water that could be provided across our Nation’s

border -- we have no ability to control how or whether another sovereign nation, in

this case Mexico, decides to allow those flows to pass down to the estuary environment or diverts that additional increment of water to consumptive uses enroute to

62

the Gulf. The Colorado River is fully appropriated so finding additional sources of

water to meet environmental needs is a most challenging proposition.

On June 18, 2001, on behalf of Wyoming, I joined with the other Governor’s Representatives on Colorado River Operations for the other six states, in sending letters

to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning the matter of additional water to meet the estuary environmental needs in

Mexico. Our letter expressed several key points, including the United States’ past

and continuing full compliance with all provisions of the Mexico/United States Treaty of 1944 and all subsequent minutes thereto. Our letters requested that the

United States, through the IBWC and the Department of the Interior, recognize the

legal authority of the Basin States over the appropriation, administration, development, use and management of their apportioned water and associated water rights,

and the important and central role of the States in operating and managing the

Colorado River, as established under U.S. law. The letter requested that the U.S.

‘‘cooperate and communicate closely with, and seek the participation of, the Basin

States’’ and noted that each of the ‘‘States are committed to playing a cooperative

and constructive role in addressing these issues.’’ Further, ‘‘any proposal to manage

water and other natural resources for environmental purposes in the Delta that includes the cooperation, participation or funding by the United States should be consistent with clearly articulated and agreed-upon habitat, species or environmental

goals.’’

As with regard to recovery of endangered species, the federal government of the

United States must realize and recognize that these issues cannot be solved without

the Basin States and that attempts to broker a deal for providing additional flows

to Mexico cannot be placed upon the backs of the Basin States.

CONCLUSION

There are several foundations upon which the ‘‘Law of the River’’ rest. Centrally

important to Wyoming’s long-term interests is the certainty that is provided to the

Upper Basin by the Law of the River, including the right of future development.

Further, the Law of the River defines the apportionments of the states. Under ‘‘normal’’ water supply determinations, there is a limit in the Lower Colorado River

Basin of 7.5 million acre-feet per year of beneficial consumptive use from the

mainstem Colorado River. The implementation of the California Plan is necessary

on account of that fact. Wyoming’s efforts in each of the management arenas discussed above, and others not addressed and beyond the scope of this testimony, are

important components of maintaining our ability to develop our apportioned share

of the Colorado River in the 21st Century, and beyond.

As the Basin States, working cooperatively together on a myriad of issues within

the complex framework of the Law of the River, have certainly come to appreciate,

the best escape from a problem is to solve it. Since water is such an indispensable

and scarce natural resource in the American West, resulting disputes and the manner in which they are resolved, whether through litigation, or through the cooperative approaches being undertaken in the Colorado River Basin presently, deserve

careful attention. We greatly appreciate the interest, concern and attention which

this Committee places in these matters and which are reflected in the conduct of

today’s field hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davidson, and I thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony. And what we intend to do now

is recognize each Member for 5 minutes. Keep in mind it will go

as many rounds as these folks can handle. If you get so you can’t

handle any more, walk out. Of course, if you walk out, we’re going

to hammer you and your respective state. Just kidding.

Ms. Jones, let me say something to you if I may. Mr. Anderson,

Mr. Holsinger, Mr. Dishlip, Patricia Mulroy, Mr. Mutz, and Mr.

Davidson all alluded to California stepping up and living within

their 4.4. This agreement’s there, you all feel good about it, you

think it’s going to work. And yet they’ve all alluded also—Mr. Anderson alluded to the Salton Sea. If Mary Bono was sitting here,

who represents that area, she would go in great detail how important it is to flush out the Salton Sea. It would take all of Lake

63

Mead and Lake Powell probably to do it, but she talks about that

on a regular basis.

You have alluded to some drought figures you’ve got. California

is a growing—I mean, let’s face it, the biggest state in America

right now. Two members of this panel are from California. You

really think you can do it, I mean we’re all counting on it. I kind

of got the impression from everybody else here that they’re counting on California living up to their agreement. To add, even more

complicated than that, we’re going to talk about the same with our

friends from the south, from Mexico, how are we going to resolve

all that. I’d kind of like to hear your opinion of those things.

Ms. JONES. Well, I think I might start off by noting that in your

opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned the massive

bill introduced by our Subcommittee Chairman here with respect

to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I think that if you looked at

the CALFED program or the Bay-Delta issues perhaps 10 years

ago, as people have mentioned with regard to the Colorado River,

you would never have thought that people came as far on that

issue as they have so far, and that is giving us encouragement that

we can move forward with these Colorado River issues in a similar

way. Certainly, as has been mentioned, the CALFED Bay-Delta

program is a very expensive proposition to move forward.

The Salton Sea is one of those emerging environmental issues

that has perhaps been in the shadow of more well known environmental resources to the north in the Bay-Delta, but we are hopeful

that we will be able to work out among the competing interests and

the folks that have different views about what the future of the sea

should be a way that allows that to be resolved, as well as being

able to go forward with implementing the 4.4 Plan, which is very

key to California, and which we do believe that our local agencies

are working with us to make good on-the-ground progress in some

of the projects such as the canal lining projects, the groundwater

storage projects, and putting together the water transfers.

It hasn’t been mentioned here yet this morning, but this week

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in its board

meeting, will be asked to consider approving yet another ag-tourban water transfer with Palo Verde Irrigation District, located in

the Blythe area of California, yet another thing to move forward on

the 4.4 Plan. So we are hopeful that with continued effort in this

area, we will be able to keep this process moving.

The CHAIRMAN. It’s going to be very interesting. It should be a

real challenge to California, because you’re accustomed to using a

lot of our Upper Basin water. Mr. Dishlip pointed out that Arizona

was using their full allotment during his testimony. Mr. Anderson,

does Utah use their full allotment?

Mr. ANDERSON. At the present time the State of Utah’s allocation

would be about 1.37 million acre-feet. We’re currently using about

950 to one million acre-feet of water within the state of Utah. The

remainder of our water either goes down into Glen Canyon Dam

and is stored there, or if Glen Canyon needs to be released downstream because it may spill, then it would go on downstream to

Lake Mead.

The CHAIRMAN. And Parker and Davis in California. Mr.

Holsinger, what about Colorado, are you using your full allotment?

64

Mr. HOLSINGER. No, Mr. Chairman, at this time Colorado is

using, on a rough average, about 2.6 million acre-feet per year. The

remainder of our Compact apportionment flows downstream for

storage in Lake Powell and use by the other states.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Mulroy, are you using yours?

Ms. MULROY. Almost.

The CHAIRMAN. You don’t have much, but how much do you use?

Ms. MULROY. We expect to use our full apportionment by the

year 2004. That’s what we’re estimating. We’re diverting our full

apportionment at this point, but we’re recharging our own groundwater basins with it. So from—for river purposes from a diversion

standpoint, yes, we are diverting our full 300,000, but we’re not

using it for M&I yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mutz?

Mr. MUTZ. Mr. Chairman, New Mexico’s Upper Basin allotment

is a little over 700,000 acre-feet. We’re presently using about

450,000 acre-feet of that water. But projects are authorized, and

some under construction, most under construction except for the

Animas-La Plata, that will utilize about 90 percent of that allocation. We are planning a project that will use the remaining 10 percent of that basic apportionment in the Upper Basin.

And of course the Upper Basin Compact provides that one state

may use another state’s unused apportionment with no right to it.

And we’re not bashful about using that for a short period of time.

In the lower basin, as I indicated earlier, we still have not put

to use any of the 18,000 acre-feet authorized by the Central Arizona Project, but we’re working on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davidson?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, no, we are not, and we’re proud

of it. And just as the original framers of the Compact, we believe

that the certainty that we’re provided under the Law of the River

and under the Compact allows us to develop that remaining portion. We have probably, depending on the estimates, roughly

200,000 acre-foot a year that we’re not using right now that we

want to be able to develop reasonably and responsibly, rather than

hurry up and develop before California gets their hands on it.

The CHAIRMAN. So there are only two states that are using their

full capacity, that would be Arizona and Nevada; is that right?

Well, California, they use over their capacity, which they’ve done—

well, that’s what I’m saying. You really got your work cut out for

you, if I may respectfully say so.

Chairman of the Committee on Water and Power, Mr. Calvert,

you’re recognized.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think. As was pointed

out, southern California is dependent upon the Colorado for 60 percent of its water needs. Los Angeles is not able to import as much

water from the Owens Valley area, based upon recent court decisions; the same applies to the Mono Lake area. Imported water

from northern California has been threatened by recent decisions

both for the Endangered Species Act, and Native Americans most

recently on the Trinity River, which involves 300,000 acre-feet of

water which, by the way, is the entire allocation for the state of

Nevada within the Colorado River.

65

On top of that, of course, California, under this interim agreement, must meet its 4.4 million acre allocation by 2016, and put

on top of that the demand in California, as throughout the entire

West, is going up dramatically. That’s before we get into the Mexican delta, before we get into the Salton Sea, before we get into ESA

and the rest of it. So when people refer to HR 1985 as a massive

bill, it may be, but we’ve got a massive problem.

I guess the question, and I think everyone here pretty much answered that question, is that—and I think Mr. Dishlip of Arizona

said that the best security for Arizona, I suspect the best security

for both the Upper and Lower Basin state, is make sure that California lives within its 4.4 million acre-foot allocation. Does everybody agree to that? Yes, I don’t see any disagreement with that. So

how do we do that? And that’s why we have legislation that we

want to move forward that most Californians are already on board

with.

Miss Jones, do you believe that California in the future can meet

its future needs without additional storage in the north, on top of—

obviously we’ll get into other programs, but let’s talk about additional storage, both off stream, groundwater and the rest.

Ms. JONES. The storage is a very important part of our package

of meeting California’s water reliability, as was alluded to by the

other states. Right now the focus has been on the groundwater

storage side. To some extent we have neglected large-scale groundwater storage programs, you might say, in past years, and only are

recently beginning to implement these kind of actions. Since California’s last drought, for example, we now have another half dozen

or so of large-scale groundwater storage programs on line, some

with capacities of as large as a million acre-feet, bringing to nearly

20 the number of large-scale groundwater management programs—

Mr. CALVERT. Specifically—

Ms. JONES. Semitrophic Water Storage District, Arvin-Edison

Water Storage District, the programs by the two Alameda districts

in the Bay area, those kinds of projects—

Mr. CALVERT. Miss Jones, reclaiming my time. Surface storage,

how about surface storage, is your office prepared to support additional surface storage in the state of California?

Ms. JONES. I might have to punt that question for the Governor’s

office to answer. Surface storage, as you know, is a—surface storage outside of what is under discretion in the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program remains a controversial subject politically within California, certainly—

Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time again, I just want to make

this point because we’re limited to these 5 minutes, and certainly

we’ll come back, is that within HR 1985, obviously it supports all

the groundwater storage solutions that we can possibly come up

with, also it does not preclude the fact that we can move toward

surface storage in the state of California if it—obviously, is what

we need. Based upon everything that I’ve heard in this testimony

today, California’s diminishing supply of water, based upon existing reality and its increasing demand, we’re going to need all of

that water in order to meet our requirement by 2016 to the 4.4 million acre feet Plan allocation. Wouldn’t you agree?

66

Ms. JONES. Absolutely. We need every resource we can get our

hands on.

Mr. CALVERT. Talk to the Governor, if you can get a hold of him,

and let him know that we need to make sure that we—we’re all

supportive of this legislation, and so we can develop additional

water resources in the state of California.

The issue on Salton Sea came up, and obviously that’s a tough

issue. But—and obviously there’s some discussion about the link

between the 4.4 million acre feet allocation and the Salton Sea.

Somebody wanted to get more specific about that. In the interim

agreement is there some legal requirement that the Department of

Interior come up with a preferred solution to the Salton Sea prior

to some of the litigation work with the irrigation district and the

water transfer in San Diego, is someone aware of that? Is there

some kind of—Miss Jones, is there— Ms. JONES. The real requirement for us is within the Interim

Surplus Guidelines themselves, which say that if by the end of

2002 California has not executed the Quantification Settlement

Agreement package and is moving forward, then the surplus criteria do not take effect. That’s the rule.

Mr. CALVERT. So that’s a real problem that we’re going to have

to—Has the Department of Interior indicated to you yet when

they’re going to come up with a preferred solution on the Salton

Sea?

Ms. JONES. Not directly, no.

Mr. CALVERT. I’ll come back for a second round, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel like I’ve been

battered. California seems to be the target. And the reason, as I

stated in my opening statement, that I’m very concerned is because

all of us have a vested interest in it.

I’ve heard a lot of the talk concentrated on the allocations, on the

issues between the different states, but I’ve heard nobody talk to

the quality of the water of the river. And my concern, of course, has

been Moab, which we pushed through last administration. And the

second one that is totally a very big bone of contention in my area

is the cost of the salinity, taking the salinity out of the river water.

Yet I’ve heard nobody say that this is an issue that we need to look

at. Because there’s a big cost to taking that salt out of the water

that can be used to promote the underwater—the underground, the

river—underground river, I’m sorry, my mind is a little on California time yet, the storage of water, extension of the infrastructure of recycling of water, I mean all of that can be utilized to be

able to help California, yet I’m not listening to anybody saying

these are issues that may be able to help California meet that 4.4.

And I’d like to ask anybody how they feel about it. Yes, we are

under great time constraints, if you will, we all know it, at least

those of us that have been involved in the water. And we need to

undertake, of course, a big program of education for everybody to

understand how important the correct usage of water, where that

includes agriculture, urban, et cetera. But I’d like to hear from any

of you as to how you feel you could help us deal with that issue.

Mr. ANDERSON. I was just going to say we have a program called

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program in place in the

67

Colorado River Basin. All seven states are involved. Many of us

here at the table are involved with that program, serve on the

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. And it’s one of the

best programs, if not the best water quality program in the country. And I know we’re trying to do a lot to control the salts that

get into the water.

Much of the salts that enter the water comes in naturally. The

Basin itself sits on an old sea bed and the formations are such that

as the water goes down through, travels through the country, picks

up about 400 part per million of salts. The remaining salts, another

approximately 400 part per million, almost doubles, comes from irrigation, generally irrigation runoff, much of it from the Upper

Basin, probably most of it from the Upper Basin. And the Colorado

Basin Salinity Control Program is an effort that we are working on

to improve irrigation efficiency, therefore reducing deep percolation, reducing runoff from irrigated ground, that has proven to be

very cost-effective in controlling salt loading.

And so I think the reason that we probably haven’t talked about

it is we think we have a program in place that is addressing the

issue, and we are meeting all of the water quality criteria that has

been established under the Clean Water Act for the Colorado River

system.

We continue to implement these programs in Utah. We have numerous programs in the Uintah Basin and in the Price San Rafael

area where we’re funding irrigation improvements through this

program—

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Anderson, I understand that, and I’m very

happy to hear that you have those very wonderful programs. The

issue though is that a lot of the water that we receive in the southern basin, the south basin is heavily—well, it is a problem for

MWD and other water agencies, that they have to take salt still

out of that water.

Now, my understanding, and this is in speaking to the former

Secretary of... I’ve lost it, Mr. Richardson, Secretary Richardson,

that the lands that provide a lot of the salinity to the river, over

half of them are Federal lands. My concern then is why are we not

asking the Federal Government to take its share of the cost of taking the salt out of the water, helping the states that deal with the

issues, especially in the Lower Basin, that will allow us to be able

to again conserve funds to be able to deal with our own reduction

of the 4.4 Plan?

Mr. ANDERSON. Again, some of the others may want to respond.

One of the—you’re right, one of the big issues is that in—for example, in Utah, about 67 percent of the state is owned by the Federal

Government. You get out in the Colorado River Basin, that percentage goes up much higher than that; it might be 75 percent of

that area is operated—is owned and controlled by the Federal Government.

The Bureau of Land Management is the biggest landowner out

in that part of the country. Bureau of Land Management is a participant in the salinity control program. We, as the basin states,

have been trying to get the Bureau of Land Management to do

more, to go into their lands and try and put some money in to

68

control runoff from their land, to control the amount of salinity

that’s coming.

I think there was a bill passed earlier this year requiring the

BLM to submit a report to Congress on their activities. We support

that legislation, and are hoping that will help put some additional

pressure on the Bureau of Land Management— Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I think it goes beyond helping BLM do

its job, I think we need to force BLM to do its job to a certain degree.

All of you mentioned Mexico. My understanding is you have a

desal plant down near Yuma, if I remember correctly, that sometimes does not go on line. I don’t hear anybody saying that it is on

line, that it is used to be able to clear the water before going to

Mexico, per the treaty. And that’s an issue also. If we’re all going

to say, well, let’s give them water, what about the quality of water

that’s required, even for those riparian areas, or especially for the

riparian areas that they’re talking about?

Ms. MULROY. Herb may want to jump in on the desalter, but I’ll

go ahead and take that. We mentioned earlier that the lack of

using the desalter has created the Cienega de Santa Clara, which

is a huge bird sanctuary. I think if the desalter were to be started

and that water would no longer flow into Mexico and that habitat

would be destroyed, you would have a major international incident.

Because there is huge value to the Mexicans in the Cienega de

Santa Clara, so it’s not that simple.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, no, I understand, and there’s also litigation currently.

Ms. MULROY. By United States environmental groups.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And Mexican environmentalists, right. You

might also note that part of the water that flows into the Rio Bravo

and eventually into the Rio Grande is being dammed on the Mexican side, creating about a $90 billion loss to Texas farmers.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like to

thank all of our panelists for being here, and welcome to my district. We’re right on the edge here of Mr. Hansen’s district and

mine. He got the airport because he loves to fly, but we got the Department of Natural Resources buildings in my district. All that

may change here in the near future though.

I was pleased to hear about the collegiality among the states and

the development of working relationship that’s happening there. I

couldn’t help but think about in Utah here, where we have a bit

of a water shortage. And so the last few days, as the heat has gone

up and the ditches have decreased in their volume, I’ve gotten to

know my neighbors a lot better, and I’m hoping that we can maintain that same kind of collegiality that you have.

Interestingly, we have about 12 families that use a pressurized

sprinkler system, and it is so much more efficient that the water

district doesn’t even count what we do because we’re way under

what our rights would allow there. And that all worked quite well

until recently; one of our neighbors was unhappy with the flow,

and so he decided instead of sprinkling he would open all his

valves and flood his area, which leads us back I guess to the salinity problem that Ms. Napolitano was concerned about. So these

69

issues that we’re dealing with are important issues. They go all the

way up from individuals and up to states, of course.

There are a couple things that I was interested in if I could just

get a bit of a follow-up. I appreciate, Miss Mulroy, your information

about the Cienega de Santa Clara. And I’d actually like to know

a little bit more about that, how big it is, how it works. And Mr.

Dishlip, if you could address that, I would appreciate that.

Mr. DISHLIP. Well, the Cienega de Santa Clara is the result of

a project constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation to remove the

drainage water from the Wellton-Mowhawk Irrigation District that

at the time was, back in the 1960’s, I guess, was adding a great

deal of salt to the—drainage waters were being discharged back to

the Colorado River and being delivered to Mexico. And because of

that, it was creating a great deal of problems with irrigation in

Mexico. And so it led to an international negotiation, which led to

a Minute to the Mexican Water Treaty. Part of the result of that

Minute was an agreement that the United States would not put too

much salt or much greater salt loading in the salt—in the Colorado

River than what would divert at Imperial Dam. Well, the solution

to that problem was to make sure that this drainage water did not

discharge any longer to the Colorado River, at least at the high

parts per million that it was.

And for a period of time it was felt we could divert that water

around the Colorado River and discharge it to the ocean in Mexico,

and so the Congress passed the Salinity Control Act, and on Title

1 of that led to a construction of a bypass canal. And now the water

that’s pumped to a drainage in the Wellton-Mowhawk area which

is high is salt is bypassed from the river and it’s discharged. And

instead of being discharged actually to the ocean, it was discharged

near the ocean in an area that historically had some marshlands

in Mexico.

Well, what was thought to be a fairly short-term solution until

the Yuma Desalt Plant was up and running turned out to be a 25-

or 30-year issue. And as a result of that, this about 130,000 acrefeet of discharge water annually has been bypassed to the Cienega.

And I believe it’s created about 10,000 acres, or hectares, I’m not

sure which, of marshland habitat. That marshland habitat is very

high quality for bird life. The water is very salty that is discharged

there, so you don’t get a diverse riparian habitat, but you get a lot

of cattails and marshes. And as a result it’s developed a very high

quality habitat in the Republic of Mexico for bird life.

Now the issue really has come about, I believe, as a result of

these limits being placed on the use of water in the United States,

and California no longer having access to an unlimited supply of

water, the Lower Basin now must live within its entitlement. As

a result of that process that led to the construction of the desalt

plant, which was now we have to treat that water and not bypass

it to the ocean any more, but treat it and deliver it to Mexico as

higher quality water has become the issue of the day.

And the issue really comes about, what do we do? Do we turn

that desalt plant that has been constructed and it’s kind of

mothballed in the Yuma area on—carry out the activity as it was

planned in the early 1970’s to offset and reclaim that water and

make it useful and deliverable, or do we maintain that habitat in

70

Mexico and find some other way to meet the intent of the Salinity

Control Act. And this is a real challenge.

On top of that challenge is that the operation of the Yuma Desalt

Plant is quite expensive; I think the estimate is it could cost as

much a $25 million a year to run that desalt plant. And even after

you run that desalt plant, it will only treat about two-thirds of the

water supply. The way the desalt plant works is it treats a portion

of the water to very high quality, and then that’s released to the

river and blended, but the remaining part is very high concentration in salts, it’s called the brine stream. And so about a third of

the water supply would continue to have to be discharged to the

Cienega even if you ran the plant, and now the quality of that

water is going to increase in salinity by a multifactor because now

you’re dealing with a much higher level concentration.

The Bureau of Reclamation is actively involved in looking at alternatives of what to do about this issue. From the State of Arizona

standpoint, we look at it as a combination of a water quality issue,

but also water supply issue. This water that’s being discharged to

the Cienega is usable water, all it needs to do is to be treated. And

considering the value and the shortage of supply in the Colorado

River, a hundred or 130,000 acre-feet is a significant water resource available not just to the state of Arizona, but to the entire

basin states. But things have happened over those 30 years and

the situation’s changed, and I don’t know right now what the answer is.

Mr. CANNON. I think my time has about expired, but can just I

ask one quick—if you turned the desalinization plant on, what

would the cost per acre be? Do you have any idea?

Mr. DISHLIP. I believe the Bureau of Reclamation estimates the

cost per acre-foot of treated water, on the order of $350 an acrefoot.

Mr. CANNON. Great. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Coming

from the state that has the smallest appropriated allocation of

Colorado River water, I’m very pleased also to be here as officious

intermeddler on this Committee. I’m also pleased to see the State

of Nevada representative in this issue as well because of the significance, as Miss Mulroy has said, about the state of Nevada.

My concern, however, is the fact that there’s so much complexity

in our legal system with regard to this, the complexity of state

versus state, state versus Federal, Federal versus international

laws, all riding together to come to some sort of uniform agreement, and the effect that’s going to have not only on the users, but

on the ultimate condition and quality of the Colorado River as well.

I was very pleased when I read Mr. Holsinger’s testimony. I

came to page 6 and in that, Mr. Holsinger, you proposed that Congress amend the Land/Water Conservation Fund to direct the Forest Service to use its allocated Land/Water Conservation Fund

moneys to acquire water rights, and then transfer those water

rights to each state. This, to me, sounds like a far better idea than

having the United States own and control water rights themselves

because, as we in the West know, states do have the right and title

to the water that’s within the states themselves. So is Colorado

71

prepared from a political standpoint to make that recommendation

in Congress?

Mr. HOLSINGER. Thank you, Congressman. The State of Colorado

just recently contacted our delegation about this very idea. We’ve

yet to have a great deal of dialogue, but we’re optimistic that working with our delegation and others, we’d be able to try to do something like that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Good. Let me, in the bit of time I’ve got remaining,

talk about some of our state of Nevada issues. Miss Mulroy, you

know, obviously the State of Nevada is either—very close to its allocated share right now, 300,000 acre-feet. Knowing that we’ve

gone through a series of steps internally in the State of Nevada to

make more efficient our utilization of water, in turn, using return

flow credits to be able to extend the utilization of that water,

what—what’s the State of Nevada preparing to do in the year 2016,

when it reaches the ultimate cap, even with the bypass surpluses,

in terms of its utilization? What are we—what do we plan to do beyond 2016? That date is not that far away, and we certainly have

a great deal resting on any planning that may take place.

Ms. MULROY. That’s correct. In the—after 2016, we would first

begin to use the water that we’ve banked in the State of Arizona.

We have also put some things into place, we have bought significant shares in the Muddy River within the State of Nevada, and

that’s a tributary to the Colorado River, and it would be our intent

to begin utilizing those. We have an agreement with the Muddy

River Irrigation District that will allow us to begin utilizing that

water. So we’re looking at any and all alternatives.

But our safety net is the water that we have banked in the State

of Arizona. Because the combination of the interim surplus criteria,

water conservation, and banking in the state of Arizona will take

us beyond the year 2040.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

that. And I’ll reserve any future questions till the next round.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. If Josh here figured this

right, when you all told me what you weren’t using, there’s about

three million acre-feet that’s flowing to California that’s not being

used by the other states. Did I figure that right, Josh? Anyway,

this hearing, to me, jumps out as the problem that’s going to happen in 2016. And I guess it’s kind of a responsibility for all these

other states to, as Miss Mulroy just pointed out, make sure they’re

able to take care of their water after that time.

And what I really feel good about is the cooperation that seems

to be here among the seven states on how they’re going to do this.

You know, and I hope that stays there. But sometimes I’ve seen

these things happen, over my 20 years of Congress, when it finally

comes down to push and shove, we’re back in court. And I hope

that doesn’t happen. So I think what would avert that is if people

make the—whatever is necessary to take care of those things prior

to that date coming about.

I appreciate Mr. Holsinger’s comment on what he just said to Mr.

Gibbons. That’s a very interesting concept, we’ll look forward to

seeing that. There’s just a lot of things that are pretty sacrosanct,

you know, when you start talking these areas of who has control

72

of water. I don’t know of anything in the West that’s more important than water; we live and die with water.

This isn’t a hearing on the Endangered Species Act or energy,

but the Colorado River has those two problems also. I don’t think

a lot of people realize the ramifications of the Colorado River. A

few of you have alluded to the Endangered Species Act. Does anyone want to tackle some of that? Let me tell you what we’ll do. The

Committee has put together a working group, comprised of five Republicans and five Democrats. The Endangered Species Act was

passed in 1973, and I assume most of us probably would have

voted for it if the intent of the Act was carried out. If you go back

and read the original hearing on it and what was said on the

House floor and the Senate floor, it was for kind of major species,

for example, the bald eagle was mentioned a number of times, the

grizzly bear was mentioned a number of times. The Act just somehow got a little carried away, in the opinion of a lot of us, and has

gone way beyond that. And if there’s any Act that is difficult for

BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, you folks who work with water,

people that work with energy, it turns out to be the Endangered

Species Act. We’re hoping that it can be somewhat worked out. It

will not go away. I mean, I get letters every day saying repeal it.

It’s not going to happen. What has to be and what should be done

is to modify the Act so it’s a more working Act and we can work

with it.

I’ll throw out one recommendation just that the Committee has

worked on, and you tell me what you think about other recommendations that you may have that you feel would be workable,

because I’m sure every one of you has to work on it. Do you know,

if you wanted to go into the Grand Canyon right now and do something, you’d have to have a permit from the Superintendent of the

Grand Canyon? And that’s how the Park Service works.

Now what if someone came in to one of your states and wanted

to explore the possibility of putting some species on to the Endangered Species Act. Would you feel comfortable if, right here in the

state of Utah, if Kathy Clark, the Natural Resource Director, if she

had a peer-review group, and that peer-review group said, well,

let’s see your qualifications, and let’s also see what this species is

and why you want to preserve it. And then if they agree, you get

the go-ahead. Now this is done in other areas, we’ve done it in the

Park Service. And in a way, it puts a little more responsibility on

the states, but it would probably curtail the listing problem that we

have. Biggest problems we have are listing and delisting, they’re

the two biggest problems we have with the Act.

Now with that said, I’ve used more than half of my time. Does

anybody want to respond to that? Mr. Davidson, you looked like

you could hardly wait to say something. I’d like to turn to you.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pretty good mind

reader too, I guess.

The—without knowing the details of this peer-review group

itself, certainly I don’t know how capably I can respond to it, although I think it probably gets at one of the issues that I believe

is at the heart of some of the problems with the Endangered Species Act, and that is the whole, as you mentioned, the listing determination. And right now, basically it takes a postage stamp for an

73

individual organization to request or insist upon the listing of species. And then of course, as you all know, that triggers a number

of requirements for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and ultimately

can trigger a number of obstacles for anyone who wants to, for example, float a portion of the river that—under a situation where

they require some kind of a major Federal action.

So certainly from Wyoming’s perspective, we believe that there

needs to be some kind of a realistic assessment of the science that

goes into determination of whether there’s a listing or not. As you

all know, it’s based upon—currently based upon the best available

science, but that determination of best available science is oftentimes left to individuals who use their discretion pretty broadly, I

might say, and we believe that some kind of a peer review to assess

the science behind any type of a listing determination, or delisting

determination, for that matter, would certainly be very useful.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the economy of the area should be

a consideration on listing species?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Again, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. And I believe it

technically is required to be a determination, but it is given very

short shrift, generally, in the determinations.

The CHAIRMAN. Do any of you feel that when Fish and Wildlife

takes over private property, that they should pay the market value,

or should they pay the depreciated value because of the species?

Does anyone want to tackle that one?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, this would be my own personal

viewpoint, not that perhaps of the Governor of the State of Wyoming, although perhaps it would be, I don’t know. Certainly my

viewpoint is that it should be the fair market value, not the value

that’s been depreciated as a result of listing.

The CHAIRMAN. Coming out of the Attorney General’s office, you

read the Constitution where it says just compensation?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That’s the way I read it too, as Chairman of this

Committee. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. California certainly

must help themselves, and certainly we’re trying to do that in California to meet our obligation for future water, but would you all be

supportive of Federal assistance leverage to build water projects in

California if it helps us meet the 4.4 Plan? Why don’t we start off

with Mr. Anderson.

Mr. ANDERSON. Again, we’ve been very supportive. I think California’s been very honest with us in their desires. I believe them

when they say they will do whatever’s necessary to be done to comply with the Interim Surplus Guidelines, the record decision, and

implement their four point plan. If it requires Federal funding for

that to be successful, then from our—from my perspective as a person who visits with them and sits at the table with them, I would

support that.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Holsinger?

Mr. HOLSINGER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the State of Colorado

is very supportive of actions such as that for California to implement their water use plan.

I might qualify it with, so long as it doesn’t affect our ability to

go forward with the implementation of Animas La Plata in

74

Colorado; that’s also very important for Colorado and New Mexico.

But yes, we’re very supportive of that.

Mr. CALVERT. We’ll work with you on that. I would hope you say

yes, Miss Jones.

Ms. JONES. Oh, absolutely, and as you probably know, some of

our California water users are starting to talk about a proposed

legislative proposal for such a system.

Mr. DISHLIP. I think through the discussions we had with the 4.4

Plan, we were all educated to a high degree on the interconnection

between state water projects, central valley projects, Colorado

River supplies, and how the plumbing all links together, including

Arizona’s perspective that California does have enough water available if they can find ways to put it to use. And our interest in the

Colorado River was that we recognize that California’s going to

have an increasing need for water, but they needed to reduce on

the Colorado River side, and might require additional expenditures

in the northern California side. We clearly are supportive of that.

But on the other hand, we believe that the proposal that’s been

put forth on the 4.4 Plan can be accomplished within California

even without funding from—on the northern California side.

Ms. MULROY. We concur with the State of Arizona. We are—we

are very supportive of any funding for CALFED projects, but would

have to leave the burden on the State of California to meet its obligation. And as—we would be concerned if it would be in competition with any of the water quality issues that we have, requests for

funding out in front of Congress to help improve the water quality

in Lake Mead, to remove perchlorides and urban contaminants

from entering Lake Mead. And we, with Congressman Gibbons’ assistance, are looking for assistance in that area. So to the extent

that it doesn’t compete.

And let me throw in one other thing. We would be supportive of

northern California projects, but there is a project in the state of

California being looked at that we would not only not be supportive

of, but we would violently oppose, and that would be another aqueduct for diversion into San Diego. If that were part of any funding

plan, then that would crater any support.

Mr. MUTZ. Congressman, we, as indicated in our statement, are

supportive of California’s efforts to reduce its use of Colorado River

water. And they’ve got a big job ahead of them. We recognize the

effort that’s been put forth to date.

Again, as indicated by my colleagues, we would look carefully at

any competition for funds with projects with which we are interested in at home. But generally we would support California in its

efforts, looking, however, to California to take the initiative in

doing its development.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Congressman Calvert. We also would

support request for funding from California’s part that would result

in their ability to comply with the 4.4 Plan. I would caution

though, sometimes things work slowly through the Federal processes, and we would not be supportive of any slippage in the schedule, I guess, whether that’s caused by lack of Federal funds or just

through California’s own actions.

Mr. CALVERT. Yeah, and I’m glad that you primarily seem to be

supportive of this, or you are supportive of that, because obviously

75

cooperation is important, not just with all of the Western states in

order to meet our future water demands. And certainly we know

water is fungible just like electricity, and that has an effect on the

entire West. And I assure you as the Chairman of the Subcommittee, I have been and will continue to work with each one of

you to try to meet your future water needs and demands.

But I just want to make the point that based upon my earlier

statement, based upon the fact that California must meet its 4.4

Plan based upon the interim decision, based upon the fact that we

have at this point a diminishing supply of water in California, increasing demand on water, that we’re going to have to do a lot, and

we’ll need to leverage Federal money to assist California to meet

future demands and make sure we don’t have a problem down the

road which will affect the entire western United States. So I appreciate your support in that, and look forward to working with each

one of you.

And now I will recognize Miss Napolitano from Los Angeles,

California.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. I’m very interested in

a lot of the dialogue on some of the solutions. One of the questions

that I have is—had since the Chairman brought up the endangered

species, and Mr. Dishlip, is there any program similar to the Upper

Colorado River Basin Fish Recovery Program being—I know there

was talk of it to the Lower Basin to help maintain the endangered

species, fish.

Mr. DISHLIP. Yes, Congressman Napolitano, the program in the

Lower Basin is called the Multispecies Conservation program. It’s

a little different than the recovery program in the Upper Basin.

The recovery program in the Upper Basin is geared at recovery of

certain listed endangered species. In the Lower Basin, we looked

more toward a comprehensive approach to recover existing endangered species, but also to look at a wide range of additional species

to avoid future listing. And so it’s taken on a broader scale, you

might say, in the Lower Basin. It’s a cooperative effort. Right now

it’s just still in the formulation standpoint. We really don’t have

other than a pilot program anticipated that the current time. But

the idea is to move forward potentially with a 50-year program to

lead to recovery of the species and avoiding of additional listing.

It’s a cooperative effort between the water users, the power

users, the Federal Government obviously is a very critical player

in all of this, both because they manage the Lower Colorado River

Basin, and also a considerable amount of water use in the Lower

Basin is for Federal purposes, including Indian tribes’.

Right now what some of the difficulties are is getting established

exactly what that program will be. There has been some contractors hired to help a Steering Committee put that program together

to get a better concept of what needs to be done. Then that has to

be costed out, and then some kind of a funding mechanism has to

be put in place.

I think the idea right now know though is to move forward with

a pilot program as soon as possible. And I believe Members of the

Steering Committee have gone back to Washington, maybe a few

weeks ago, even, to discuss that with some of the Members of Congress about getting some potential funding for some pilot programs.

76

I think the idea of a multispecies conservation program is a very

good one, it’s a creative program, again, a collaborative program.

Exactly how it’s going to work is not quite in place yet.

Now one of the comments that I had to Chairman Hansen is that

in the lower Basin, one of our particular issues is that under the

Endangered Species Act, Federal actions, and in this case, since

the river really is a Federalized river, it’s run by the Secretary of

the Interior, leads directly to consultation between the Federal

Government and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior Department, the Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service.

And yet the direct water users, the beneficiaries, the people who

have a big stake in the water supply is not the Federal Government, it’s the private and the Indian tribes who use the water and

the power. And just the structure of the Section Seven consultation

makes it fairly difficult sometimes for the people who have the

most at stake to be at the table to— Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How do we improve it?

Mr. DISHLIP. Well, we hope that the multispecies approach does

improve that, because that creates a Habitat Conservation Program where everyone works together, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to avoid that problem.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That’s in a sense just a task force, so to speak.

What if the Federal Government were to allow the input at—dealing with different— Mr. DISHLIP. I think that is exactly what most of the water users

would like. They would like to be at the table as well as the Federal Government. I believe that might take a modification to the

Act though. And so short of that, we found this other solution

which may work as well, which is be at the table through this cooperative effort.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does it also include Indian— Mr. DISHLIP. Yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. —groups?

Mr. DISHLIP. Yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the players are then the lower basin

states?

Mr. DISHLIP. The lower basin states and the water users in the

lower basin states, and the power users, the game and fish departments within the three lower basin states, and also the Steering

Committee and many nongovernmental/environmental groups.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are they also looking at contamination in the

rivers?

Mr. DISHLIP. Not particularly. This focus is to be in compliance

with the Endangered Species Act.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay, but is it not—the water quality affecting the future of the endangered species?

Mr. DISHLIP. Well, to the extent it would, I’m sure that would be

a factor. I think right now the focus really is on habitat, restoration

and recovery of currently listed endangered species.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. Given the time frame for flights this afternoon, I

think I’ll pass, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Gibbons?

77

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. Calvert, I have just a couple of

brief questions and maybe some follow-up with regard to what we

discussed earlier. And I was curious if all of you would agree that

once we reach these accommodations and these agreements and

put these programs into place, do you feel confident that we are

fairly well out of the woods with regard to any long-term protracted

litigation over the river? Mr. Davidson, we’ll start down there with

you, because you always have that wonderful smile on your face

that you want to talk, and then we’ll work our way back this direction.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Congressman Gibbons. My belief is

that if we can pull all these pieces together with respect to California and the 4.4 Plan, that we will avoid—we will be able to

avoid an interstate dispute, we will be able to avoid interstate litigation.

What I can’t predict, what I can’t give you any assurance of is

that we will be able to avoid a dispute between the states who comprise the seven states entitled to the flows of the Colorado River

and either environmental groups or some activity for or on behalf

of Mexico. That’s just—those are two unknowns that are—that are

out there that we just don’t have enough of a handle on to be able

to provide that assurance.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me add a part to that question, if I may.

If in fact the states are permitted to join in this agreement and in

the September negotiations in Mexico over the wetlands down

there, do you feel that there is a strong likelihood that the agreement or any discussions that are reached would have a likelihood

of taking effect contra to the idea that if you weren’t involved with

it, there is less of a likelihood that the seven states would agree?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I’ll take a shot and then I’ll pass it on to my

compadres here.

I believe that certainly we are going to be involved, because we

believe that there is that possibility, maybe even rising to the level,

we hope, of a likelihood, that we can avoid those kinds of disputes.

And that’s why we are intending to be involved, we are hoping to

be included as much as possible so that we can avoid it. If we’re

not included, then I think the disputes are almost inevitable.

Mr. MUTZ. Congressman, I would echo what my colleague, Mr.

Davidson, has said. I would observe, however, that one does not

know what might be thrown off the wall by groups that we have

not had a lot of experience with. We have not dealt a lot with the

Mexican nongovernmental agencies, and I’m not—I just cannot predict where we might come from with them. But as Mr. Davidson

said, that’s what we’re in this for. We hope to preclude further dispute.

Ms. MULROY. I agree with Mr. Davidson, with one extension on

that. I mean I think over the last 10 years I think one of the things

that we as the states have realized is that shared solutions are

really the only solution that can be found on the river. Litigation

is a luxury of abundance, and as the river becomes tighter and

tighter in terms of its supply, the immediate consequences of litigation become very real. They’re not something that will occur 15, 20

years, 30 years down the road; they’ll happen tomorrow. So in pursuing litigation, I think all of us are reluctant and would prefer not

78

to go that route. We would really have to be pushed against the

wall.

As this river system becomes tighter, the only real solutions are

those in which we appreciate the situation of our neighbor and can

walk in their shoes, and not ones where we manage the river as

seven separate water supply sources.

Mr. DISHLIP. Basically I think that coming out of our more recent

experience, the attitude in Arizona is to avoid litigation wherever

we can. I think our concern in the future would be that we would

still have to be prepared to protect our rights and protect our interpretation of the Law of the River as we see it. And the concern may

arise, it has not arisen to date, but it may arise, that the Secretary

of the Interior really is the master of the river, and it’s his job to

interpret how he sees the Law of the River. And it could well be

that his interpretation of the Law of the River and how he chooses

to operate it is in conflict with how we see it. That would be something we would certainly not look forward to, suing the Secretary

of the Interior. But I think that’s probably the hardest issue right

now in the future looking—the Secretary of the Interior wears so

many hats and he has so many trust responsibilities in so many

different areas, sometime or other it could well be that an issue

will arise where the hat that he wears to be the master of the river

and the hat that he wears to be the head of the Fish and Wildlife

Service or the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs could conflict

him in a way that would lead us to a position where we feel we’d

have to go to court to seek remedy.

Ms. JONES. I wholeheartedly agree with the previous speakers

about the desire that we have to avoid future litigation. And I

think we all recognize that the money that would be otherwise expended on litigation buys a lot in terms of on-the-ground habitat

restoration or water management improvements.

Mr. HOLSINGER. I don’t really have much to add, other than that

perhaps the comity that’s arisen as a result of the negotiations that

led to the California Water Use Plan is certainly a good step in the

right direction.

Mr. ANDERSON. Again, I can support the statements that have

been made. I think to me it’s obvious that from the perspective of

those who are involved today, we’re not looking to litigation, we’re

looking to try to find a solution. But we absolutely have no control

of outside groups who may initiate lawsuits and—but we will be

very protective. Our Attorney General staffs are always meeting

when lawsuits are filed to determine whether we as states should

join in in one side or the other to protect our rights, and we will

do that. But I believe the seven basin states, we have a desire to

try to find solutions to the problems that don’t include litigation.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. And thank all of you for

your presence here and your testimony, it’s certainly been enlightening to hear from you.

And Mr. Chairman, Chairmen, with regard to Chairman Hansen’s question about ESA, I find it very difficult to envision any

statute in the United States that could be applied outside or

extraterritoriality to the borders of the United States with regard

to any Endangered Species Act. First of all, we have no means of

enforcement, we have no means to ensure that there is a recovery

79

plan that would benefit the species. And I think that begs a very

serious legal challenge, one which could be directed to the heart of

the Endangered Species Act itself if there is an application of that

outside the borders of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Almost impossible, I agree with the gentleman.

I don’t think a lot of people realize out of all of the things that have

been put on the list, there’s only been about 11 or 12 recoveries.

So it’s kind of a disaster. I mean huge amounts of money we’ve put

into that thing, huge amounts of money, and we don’t see any recovery, so we wonder where we’re going.

Is this our last round? Okay, I’ll start it out. You know, there’s

been some talk by a lot of folks, and a lot of money raised, about

draining Lake Powell. What would that do to you? Mr. Mutz?

Mr. MUTZ. That might bring on a fight, Mr. Chairman. And I

should mention that litigation is a pretty good stick, and the states,

at least New Mexico, is not willing to hold that stick back when

it comes to things like draining Lake Powell. The future development of the Upper Basin depends on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you consider everywhere you’re talking

about the necessity of water, that we’re overallocated, that there’s

not enough to go around, we can’t live with the growth, the supply,

the demand, this whole thing would go down the tubes. I mean this

whole agreement you’re just talking about, it’s gone. If you drain

the Lake Powell, the whole shooting match is gone, is that right,

am I wrong?

Mr. ANDERSON. That’s right.

Ms. MULROY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All this work, the Law of the River, all the

things we’ve done, all these times, it’s gone.

Ms. MULROY. There would be no Interim Surplus Guidelines

without Lake Powell, none of this would be feasible without it.

The CHAIRMAN. People in the United States, regardless how they

feel, have certain rights to talk to Congress, and we did have one

hearing, what was that, about four or five, 6 years ago? We had

a hearing on this issue. We didn’t get much out of it. Got a lot of

talk, but we didn’t really get much as far as the meat of it, the

science, the water, the power, all that type of thing.

Excuse me, did somebody have a comment? Mr. Dishlip?

Mr. DISHLIP. Well, obviously Lake Powell has been a major point

of discussion in our state. Glen Canyon Dam’s in Arizona, and it’s

a major recreation area and a destination resort area for people in

Arizona, and the Navajo Nation are very supportive.

Probably most important from a water supply standpoint, what

makes the Colorado River work is the storage capability, that we

have more storage on the Colorado River than almost any other

river basin in the United States relative to the average annual

flow. And when you look at the erratic nature of the flows of the

Colorado River, 1 year it may be the driest year on record and the

next year may be the wettest year on record. The storage is what’s

evened out the water supply and really what’s allowed the development to occur in the Lower and Upper Basins. And having those

two very large reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are really

the linchpin.

80

And not only the political and the legal aspect to make sure that

the Compact works, but just to the physical aspect, to make sure

that water supplies are reliable, I just can’t imagine a system without tremendous disruption without a Lake Powell or something

similar.

The CHAIRMAN. So every state would oppose that, all seven of

you would really oppose this big time; is that right?

Ms. MULROY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You point out, Mr. Dishlip, the amount of water

that is stored, starting at Fontanelle I guess in Wyoming and working all way down Parker and Davis and all those in between, that’s

a sizeable amount of water stored.

Mr. DISHLIP. It’s on the order of 60 million acre-feet of storage,

and 54 million of that is located in those two large reservoirs, 24

million in Lake Powell. Without it, the system is completely different.

The CHAIRMAN. So let the record show that these seven states totally oppose this. Is that correct?

Mr. MUTZ. Agree.

Ms. MULROY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one question. I was kind of curious more than anything else. The gentlelady

from Nevada, Miss Mulroy, you mentioned a conveyance system

from—I assume from the purification district area into San Diego.

Ms. MULROY. No.

Mr. CALVERT. Or from—directly from the Colorado River, all

right. I hadn’t heard of that so I was just curious.

Ms. MULROY. The state of California has funded a feasibility

study for that.

Mr. CALVERT. If California met its 4.4 million acre-foot allocation,

why would any state be opposed to any kind of conveyance system

within state?

Ms. MULROY. Well, it wouldn’t be within state. California has

more than enough capacity to move its full allocation into the state

of California.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I was just curious, that hadn’t been brought

up to me so—as far as a way to convey water.

But I—since this is the last of my time, I wanted to thank this

panel and look forward to working with all of you to try to work

out the very difficult problem with the Colorado River. It’s a little

bit like playing three-dimensional chess, because there’s so much

demands that are placed upon such a body of water that many millions of Americans depend upon. So again, I look forward to working with all of you, and certainly with Miss Jones and the State

Legislature in California, and we certainly need the help of the

Chairman of this Committee and the entire House of Representatives to help resolve some of these major issues that are affecting

the West. And I say that water is right on top of the list, Mr.

Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I couldn’t agree more. Gentlelady from California.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to introduce for

the record as a courtesy a letter from Tom Graff, Environmental

81

Defense. It’s a letter that supports timely implementation of the 4.4

Plan and expresses support for legislation to amend the Interim

Surplus Guidelines and related documents.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it’s admitted.

[The letter from Thomas J. Graff, Regional Director, Environmental Defense, follows:]

July 5, 2001

Hon. Gale Norton

Secretary of the Interior

1849 C. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

Hon. Barbara Boxer

U.S. Senate

112 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20510

Hon. Dianne Feinstein

U.S. Senate

331 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Secretary Norton and Senators Boxer and Feinstein:

I write on behalf of Environmental Defense to urge your concerted attention to

a proposal for federal legislation now being circulated on a draft basis by the

Coachella Valley Water District, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California, and the San Diego County Water Authority.

The underlying purposes of the draft legislation are crucial to California’s future,

as they are to the other six Colorado River Basin states, to northern Mexico, and

to the environments impacted by lower Colorado River water development and management. These purposes are to facilitate implementation of the San Diego—IID

water transfer agreement, of the four agency quantification settlement agreement

(QSA) establishing rights within California’s 3.85 million acre foot agricultural entitlement from the Colorado River, and of the California plan to reduce California’s

annual usage of Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre feet. Also implicated are

a variety of other agreements, administrative actions, and environmental commitments related to the Colorado River, including commitments to various Indian

tribes, to the Colorado River Delta, and to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta.

The most immediately crucial objective of the draft legislation the four above-enumerated agencies are floating is the authorization of a program to implement a set

of habitat enhancement projects meant to offset the incremental negative environmental effects occasioned by the San Diego–IID water transfer, the QSA, and the

California 4.4 plan.

Given the many environmental benefits that should arise out of the timely implementation of those agreements, and the risks that would attend a failure to complete the agreements on the timetable set forth in the QSA and elsewhere, there

is cause here for especially prompt action on Congress’ part.

The proposed legislation as drafted has a number of controversial provisions, the

most significant of which relate to the desire of the four agencies involved to be

called upon to reckon with the negative environmental impacts only of the subject

agreements themselves. It appears to me that the four agencies are particularly concerned that other environmental problems, whose origins predate the agreements,

should be addressed in other processes and forums and that solutions to those problems, including the ultimate solution to the problem of salinity in the Salton Sea,

not be attributed to the San Diego–IID transfer, the QSA, and the 4.4 plan.

Environmental Defense has long been on record as having sympathy for this perspective. When EDF published Trading Conservation Investments for Water: A Proposal for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to Obtain Additional Colorado River Water by Financing Water Conservation Investments for the

Imperial Irrigation District in 1983, we advocated a water conservation-and-transfer

scenario for southern California even though we recognized that this could accelerate the rate at which salinity would increase in the Salton Sea. Administrative

and Congressional decisions on what to do about the increasing salinization of the

Sea are pending and should be forthcoming on an expeditious basis, particularly insofar as they bear upon the health of endangered species and their habitat. To wait

for those decisions, however, before acting on legislation to facilitate the San Diego–

82

IID water transfer and other agreements promoting water conservation in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, in our judgment, would be to risk those agreements’ fruition, without corresponding benefits.

Significant elements of the draft legislation do require further discussion and likely amendment, especially those provisions that affect the proper administration of

the Endangered Species Act, that deal with judicial review of the subject agreements, and that distribute risks and financial obligations between the United States

and the parties. But, with your assistance and active involvement and with the

continued good faith of the four agencies, I am convinced that these difficult issues

can be resolved on a satisfactory basis.

Please let me know if we at Environmental Defense can be helpful to you on this

matter. Years ago, I personally served on the Colorado River Board of California.

Based on that experience and on subsequent involvement in many water policy

issues in California and elsewhere, I am convinced that a positive resolution of the

issues involved here would make a crucially important contribution to California’s,

the nation’s, and even North America’s future.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Graff

Regional Director

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I’d like to ask Miss Jones if she’d

heard of any such plan that Miss Mulroy was referring to, because

it’s news to me also.

Ms. JONES. This has been kicking around for a while. In our

State Bond Act in 1996, the Legislature directed that a share of the

money provided for feasibility studies be given for a feasibility

study of what the San Diego Water Authority would call an alternate conveyance facility from the Colorado River in the area of Imperial Valley, as a shared facility through Mexico, going to the San

Diego area. And in fact the water agencies in the San Diego area

are continuing to discuss with their neighbors over the border

about joint water management activities, particularly with the city

of Tijuana, that would include such a feature. There are no plans

at the state level to do anything further with it unless we are otherwise directed.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. One of the other things that

strikes me as we were listening to the testimony about California

reducing its allocation to 4.4 is that we have been notified, I say

′′we,′′ my sanitation district, that tertiary treated water must now

effect a fourth treatment, which will cost billions of dollars for the

taxpayers for a treatment plant. Has anybody heard anything? Because understand that the utilization of recycled water is key for

not only industrial and commercial use, but for community use.

And that could mean a great impact, because that’s a costly proposition.

I have requested EPA to let us know why they’re doing it, on

what basis, what findings they’re relating to, and I have not heard

anything. I don’t know if you have. But that would mean a lot of

funding from the taxpayer pocket to set up a fourth treatment

plant for use of that recycled water. Nobody’s heard? Well, it will

affect every other state, and my suggestion is look into it. Thank

you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlelady. Gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I can only

say that I believe at this point in time that what needs to have

been said has been said by everybody, so I’m going to yield back

83

and thank you for the invitation to come to your Congressional District. That is, since Mr. Cannon’s not here.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Let me thank the witnesses who have all been very good, excellent testimony, well

thought out, well delivered. We really appreciate it, believe me. Everything that you’ve said we will pour over. Also, I would like the

prerogative to be able to send you questions that we may have from

time to time that come up, and we would like to ask you to elaborate on something. If you wouldn’t mind, we would appreciate it if

you would take care of that.

Let me also thank the Members of the Committee who came here

today for this testimony, and it was very good. I appreciate the

Members being here, as well as the staff people who had to come

from Washington to do this. These field hearings require more logistics than you can believe, and so we appreciate the staff for coming, and everyone who is here, for having the interest to come to

hear this very, very important issue.

Water is the critical thing in America, basically. I got into this

business 42 years ago, trying to fix a water system in Farmington,

Utah, and so the theory is if you’ve got any sense, don’t try to fix

your water system, you’ll end up a Congressman.

Anyway, with that said we’ll stand adjourned, and thank all of

you.

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ