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

73-149 PS 2002

CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 18, 2001 in Cerritos, California

June 30, 2001 in Modesto, California

July 2, 2001 in San Jose ́, California

Serial No. 107-40

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

Richard W. Pombo, California

George Radanovich, California

Greg Walden, Oregon,

Vice Chairman

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

George Miller, California

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Grace F. Napolitano, California

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on June 18, 2001 ............................................................................... 95

Statement of Members:

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

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

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

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

of California ................................................................................................... 3

Solis, Hon. Hilda L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Statement of Witnesses:

Atwater, Richard W., General Manager, Inland Empire Utilities Agency .. 35

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

Burke, Yvonne Brathwaite, Los Angeles County Supervisor, Prepared

statement submitted for the record ............................................................. 58

Davis, Christopher, Management Assistant, City of Norwalk ...................... 74

Everts, Conner, Executive Director, Southern California Watershed

Alliance .......................................................................................................... 75

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78

Gallucci, Art, City Manager, City of Cerritos ................................................ 72

Gastelum, Ronald R., Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Water

District of Southern California .................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Grindstaff, P. Joseph, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project

Authority ....................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Koffroth, Steve, Office Manager, American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees Local 1902 ......................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Levy, Tom, General Manager-Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley Water

District ........................................................................................................... 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Libeu, Lawrence M., Director of Legislative Affairs, Eastern Municipal

Water District ............................................................................................... 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64

Linsky, Ronald B., Executive Director, National Water Research

Institute ......................................................................................................... 59

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Miller, Darryl, General Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District

and Central Basin Municipal Water District ............................................. 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48

Murray, Ta’Shara, Deputy, on behalf of Representative Yvonne

Brathwaite Burke, County Supervisor of the Second District, County

of Los Angeles ............................................................................................... 58

Pisano, Mark A., Executive Director, Southern California Association of

Governments ................................................................................................. 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Stovall, John F., General Counsel, Kern County Water Agency .................. 67

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

Page

IV

Additional materials supplied:

Breidenbach, Jan, Executive Director, Southern California Association

of Non-Profit Housing, Statement submitted for the record ..................... 83

Guzman, Martha, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Letter

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 86

Lambros, Richard, Executive Vice President, Building Industry

Association of Southern California, Letter submitted for the record ....... 87

Reeves, Robert, Sr., Executive President, AFSCME Local 1902, Letter

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 90

Spitzer, Todd, Supervisor, Third District, Orange County, Statement

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 93

(V)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on June 30, 2001 ............................................................................... 95

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 95

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

Condit, Hon. Gary, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 97

Dooley, Hon. Calvin, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 98

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

of California ................................................................................................... 99

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

of California ................................................................................................... 98

Statement of Witnesses:

Birmingham, Tom, General Manager/General Counsel, Westlands Water

District ........................................................................................................... 116

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 118

Broddrick, Ryan, Director of Conservation Programs, Valley/Bay CARE,

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. ................................................................................... 169

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 170

DiCroce, Nick, Vice President, Board of Governors, California Trout, Inc. . 179

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 181

Guy, David J., Executive Director, Northern California Water

Association ..................................................................................................... 111

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 112

Guzman, Martha, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO .................. 175

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 176

Herrick, John, General Manager, South Delta Water Agency ..................... 137

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 139

Moss, Richard M., General Manager, Friant Water Users Authority .......... 122

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 123

Moss, Hon. Vern D., Chair of the Water Committee, Regional Council

of Rural Counties .......................................................................................... 101

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Nelson, Daniel G., General Manager, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water

Authority ....................................................................................................... 130

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 132

Redfern, Suzanne, Landowner ........................................................................ 176

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 179

Sablan, Dr. Marcia E., City Council Member, City of Firebaugh ................. 99

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

White, Chris, General Manager, Central California Irrigation District,

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors W.A. ......................................... 145

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 146

Additional materials supplied:

California Action on Water, Letter submitted for the record ....................... 167

(VII)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on July 2, 2001 ................................................................................. 197

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 197

Lofgren, Hon. Zoe, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 198

Statement of Witnesses:

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

of Commerce .................................................................................................. 199

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

Davis, Grace, Government Affairs Manager, Intel Corporation,

Santa Clara, California ................................................................................ 206

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

Diridon, Rod, Jr., Council Member, City of Santa Clara, California ........... 258

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 259

Estremera, Tony, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley

Water District, Santa Clara, California ...................................................... 217

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 219

Gaines, Bill, Director, Government Affairs, California Waterfowl

Association, Sacramento, California ............................................................ 201

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

Gleick, Dr. Peter H., President, Pacific Institute for Studies in

Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California ............... 235

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

Guardino, Carl, President and CEO, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group 229

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 230

McPeak, Sunne Wright, President and CEO, Bay Area Council,

San Francisco, California ............................................................................ 214

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 216

Nelson, Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council,

San Francisco, California ............................................................................. 243

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 246

Wells, Mary, Sacramento Valley Landowner ................................................. 232

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 233

Wenger, Paul J., Second Vice President, California Farm Bureau

Federation ...................................................................................................... 209

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 211

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY --

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Monday, June 18, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Cerritos, California

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in the Sierra

Conference Center at the Cerritos Center for Performing Arts at

12700 Center Court Drive, Cerritos, California, Hon. Ken Calvert

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Calvert, Napolitano and Solis

Staff Present: Joshua Johnson, Majority Staff Director; Steve

Lanick, Legislative Staff; Jolyn Murphy, Calvert’s Staff; and Jeannine Campos, Clerk.

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

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

hear testimony on Southern California Water Security -- Opportunities and Challenges.

Under Committee Rule 4G the Chairman and the Ranking

Minority Member, can make opening statements. If any members

have statements, they can be included in the hearing record under

unanimous consent.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

I frequently hear how industries such as the computer industry,

agriculture, and defense are the driving economic force in California. They are right in pointing out the importance of their specific group to this broad-based economy. These industries have enabled California to become the world’s fifth largest economy. We

just passed France last week.

Water, or rather a secure supply of quality water, is fundamental

in fueling each of these industries. We all recognize the need for

clean, safe, and reliable water supplies but too little has been done

to ensure the security of that supply.

It’s been over 30 years since California has made any major investment in improving the supply and reliability of our water system. It is imperative that California, a state that serves as an innoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
2

vative leader for the rest of the United States, address its aging

and inadequate infrastructure.

By doing so, we will increase our water supply and reliability

and enhance the quality of the water we consume. In addition, research and development must be encouraged to support and maintain efforts to improve our healthy environment and create a sustainable future.

The water and power Subcommittee will conduct a series of hearings throughout the state. We have started this process here in

Southern California where the need to focus on water security is

critical. Eighty percent of the state’s population is concentrated in

the southern half of the state which receives only 30 percent of the

annual rainfall. We depend on water from a variety of sources such

as the Colorado River, Owens Valley, and Northern California.

As most of you know, California will have to reduce it’s dependency on the Colorado River from the current level of 5.2 million

acre-feet to 4.4 million acre-feet within the next 15 years. Complying with this requirement will not be easy, especially in light of

demands placed on the water supply by an ever growing population.

Over the past 6 years California has experienced wet years. However, rainfall this year is below normal. If we begin to experience

a drought similar to the late ’80’s and early ’90’s, the state will not

be prepared to handle the demands on water supply given the competing needs which include urban users, agriculture, and the environment.

As dire as this sounds, there are solutions. Partnerships on local,

regional, state, and Federal levels have been formed and active

participation by all must be encouraged.

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1985 with 28 of my California colleagues including Mrs. Napolitano who is sitting here with us

today. This bill, the Western Security Enhancement Act, addresses

California water security by improving water supply, reliability,

and quality and by maintaining and improving our environment.

I believe the importance of this legislation should be evident to

every municipality, irrigation district, business, conversation group,

city, and county in this state. Certainly the entire West. All who

are interested and invested in the success of California’s future

should support this bill. This debate cannot have any spectators.

Too much is at risk.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Water and Power

During conversations with constituents, I frequently hear how industries such as

the computer industry, agriculture, defense, ecotourism or Hollywood, are the driving economic force in California. They are all right in pointing to the importance

of their specific group to this broad based economy. These industries have enabled

California to become the world’s sixth largest economy. But water, a secure supply

of quality water, is fundamental in fueling each of these industries.

We all recognize the need for clean, safe and reliable water supplies, but too little

has been done to assure the security of that supply. It has been over 30 years since

California has made any major investment in improving the supply, and reliability

of our water system. It is imperative that California, a State that serves as an innovative leader for the rest of the United States, address its aging and inadequate infrastructure. By doing so, we will increase our water supply and reliability, and enhance the quality of water we consume. Research and development must also be enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
3

couraged to support and maintain efforts to improve our healthy environment and

create a sustainable future.

The Water and Power Subcommittee will conduct a series of hearings throughout

the state; we have started this process, here, in southern California where the need

for a focus on water security is the most acute. Eighty percent of the State’s population is concentrated in the southern half of the State which receives only thirty

percent of the annual rain fall. We depend on water receipts from a variety of

sources such as the Colorado River, Owens Valley and northern California. In one

case, California will have to reduce it’s dependency on the Colorado River from the

current level of 5.2 million acre feet to 4.4 million acre feet within the next 15 years.

Complying with this requirement will not be easy, especially in light of demands

placed on the water supply by an ever growing population and the 1992 Federal law

known as the Central Valley Improvement Act that reallocated several hundred

thousand acre feet of contracted water supplies for other purposes. Over the past

6 years, California has experienced wet years; this year rainfall is below normal.

If we begin to experience a drought similar to the late eighties and early nineties,

the state will not be prepared to handle the demands on its water supply given the

competing needs among it’s users.

As dire as this sounds, there are solutions. Partnerships on local, regional, state

and federal levels have been formed and active participation by all must be encouraged. In Congress we have introduced a bill known as H.R. 1985, ‘‘Western Water

Security Enhancement Act’’, that addresses California water security by improving

water supply, reliability, and quality, and by maintaining and improving our environment. We currently have 27 California co-sponsors to this bill. I believe the importance of this legislation should be evident to every municipality, irrigation district, business, conservation group, and others who are interested and invested in

the success of California’s future.

I would like to recognize first my good friend and colleague on

this Committee, Grace Napolitano, for her opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE NAPOLITANO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly my gratitude

for his active leadership on the water issues at the Federal level

and for holding the first of three hearings in the California water

security in Southern California.

I believe we also need to acknowledge we are being hosted by the

city of Cerritos and the city manager is sitting in the audience. We

are pleased to thank council for allowing us to use this marvelous

facility for such an important hearing.

I’m very appreciative of my Chairman’s leadership because he’s

taken a bipartisan approach in addressing this crucial issue which

is the major problem in California’s water system is that it’s aging

and has not kept pace with the exploding population and we must

act now to address the future needs of it. I mean long-range, not

just short-range issues.

California’s last major expansion of its water system occurred

over 40 years ago when the State Water Project was approved. It

provides and transports a fourth of our water with remaining

water coming in from the Colorado River and the local ground

water, a lot of which has been contaminated and those issues to

deal with so it isn’t just the water that we import.

It’s all the other issues that our communities, our cities, and municipalities face in dealing with providing adequate potable and

doing it in an expedient manner as well as in an affordable manner.

4

When the State Water Project was built back in the ’60’s California had 16 million residents and the projections now show that

the state’s current population is about 35 million with a strong

likelihood that it’s going to hit 50 million within 20 years.

Now, that is quite a jump for us. When I was serving in the state

legislature I was told by my colleagues, my assembly colleagues,

that we have stopped building. We have stopped accepting new

people in the state of California, which may sound ludicrous to you

but they were very serious about it because we experience most of

the growth in Southern California. Northern California says, ‘‘We

need, we want, and we will keep the water and you need to find

a way to either go to desalination or recycling to fill your needs.’’ Well, we need a balance. I believe in this approach that the

Chairman has taken is taking testimony here from the folks that

actually have to deal with the issues at the local level. It’s going

to be paramount for us to be able to have a bill that is going to

help Northern California and also Southern California.

What is the best solution for this approach? I believe that’s why

we’re here and I thank my Chairman for that. We are given the

opportunity to gain additional knowledge and have input into this

complex water issue that we will be facing, not just within the next

few years if we get another cycle of drought, but if we examine the

factors that have left these challenges and listen to everybody,

hopefully we will have a piece of legislation that will assist us and

deal with our future needs of water short-term and long-term.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and that’s it for me.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And thank you for helping us put together this wonderful facility with the city of Cerritos. The city

manager, Art, is here.

Art, stand up so we can all thank you. It’s a marvelous facility.

Panel I, we have Mr. Ron Gastelum, CEO, Metropolitan Water

District; Mr. Joseph Grindstaff, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority; Mr. Steve Koffroth, Office Manager,

AFSCME Local 1902. If you will all please come to the head table.

We have a 5-minute rule. Many of you have already testified, I

know, in front of my Committee and others in the past but I’ll just

explain it one more time. The green light indicates the time is on

and the yellow light indicates 1 minute is left. The red light indicates that time has expired. There’s 5 minutes in testimony. Please

try to stay within that 5 minutes and we’ll have plenty of time for

questions. We appreciate that.

Ron, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF RONALD GASTELUM, CEO,

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

Mr. GASTELUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Honorable Grace

Napolitano. My name is Ron Gastelum. I’m the Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

I do have written testimony that I want to submit for the record.

I will make a few brief comments within the 5 minutes.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, all written testimony will be accepted in the record.

Mr. GASTELUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there

is a clear Federal interest in the legislation that has been introVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
5

duced by you and co-sponsors. The California economy, the Southern California economy, is entirely dependent upon the interconnected water system in California.

That economy noted recently in Southern California has recently

surpassed in gross national product that of France. It is a staggering contribution by Southern California to the economy of this

country and the well being of this country. When you look at the

Central Valley and the production from the Central Valley and the

Sacramento Valley in agricultural products, it is a staggering contribution.

All of that is dependent on our water system. There is indeed a

clear Federal interest in a reliable, clean, safe well-distributed

water system here in California.

There’s also a clear Federal interest given the tie between the

Colorado River, the other basin states, Mexico, and the Northern

California water systems that all tie to Southern California.

Balancing the management of those water systems not only produces benefits for Southern California but clear benefits for the

other basin states and Mexico. There’s a clear Federal interest in

this legislation.

There’s also a clear need. When we plan and develop water

projects, it can take 10 to 15 years. I’m not just talking about

building dams. I’m talking about conjunctive use programs. I’m

talking about the infrastructure necessary to move water from

point A to point B. I’m talking about the recycling programs, the

conservation programs. Long lead times are required and substantial financing is required.

There’s a clear need because of the environmental stress that we

are experiencing throughout our system. Most particularly Sacramento San Joaquin Delta which your bill addresses most directly. We are in a stress condition with our water supplies. This

year, as you noted in your preliminary comments, this has been a

dry year. The Central Valley is hurting in many places. We are

more fortunate here in Southern California because we do have

water and storage but that’s not indefinite and it will take, indeed,

more to provide us long-term security.

Global warming is something we need to take very seriously. If

global warming does result in different rainfall patterns and our

ability to capture water and store water, we need to be prepared

and this bill, in my opinion, does begin to prepare us for that very

real potential.

Then, of course, water quality. EPA regulations, state regulations, expectations of the public on our water quality have to be

met. It is best met with source water protection but a combination

is going to be needed.

This bill does address both water protection and the kinds of programs that you’ll be hearing about from Mr. Grindstaff and others

about local projects. The solution is planning, balanced development, eco-system restoration, storage and conveyance improvements all addressed by this bill.

We will have a more efficient water system. I think what we

need to keep in mind is we got to this point in the development

of our water systems here in California with the record of decision

6

and with the decisions before us through three elements; leadership, consensus, and compromise.

If we do not keep our eye on the need for those three elements,

we won’t get there and California will suffer. I commend you on the

introduction of this bill. We are strongly supportive of this legislation. You can count on us to be a part of all three of those elements; leadership, consensus, and compromise.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Gastelum.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gastelum follows:]

Statement of Ronald R. Gastelum, Chief Executive Officer,

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Introduction

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

to submit this statement regarding Southern California Water Security—Opportunities and Challenges.

My name is Ronald R. Gastelum, I am the Chief Executive Officer for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). Metropolitan is a regional wholesale water agency that provides water to 26 member public agencies

who serve 17 million people living in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego counties.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the many cosponsors for your leadership in introducing CALFED authorization legislation on May 24 that provides a

ground-breaking approach to resolving regional resource management conflicts that

affect a variety of stakeholder interests.

The CALFED legislation not only serves California, but also serves the nation’s

interests. It implements a program that assures comprehensive achievement of regional health, economic and environmental program objectives. It is one of the most

important pieces of water and environmental resource management legislation in

California’s history. In particular it:

• Authorizes funding over the next 30 years for the CALFED program, thereby

preserving a national ecological treasure, ensuring necessary infrastructure for

high-quality and reliable water supplies for our residents, industries and farms,

and providing benefits to the aquatic and avian ecosystems of California and

other western states;

• Creates an institutional framework through a Governance Board that provides

the stability needed to assure coordination among the multiple local, regional,

state and federal resource agencies must take coordinated actions to implement

the CALFED program;

• Creates a competitive process to fund local and regional projects providing broad

access to finances and assuring lower costs;

• Enhances the federal program for funding small reclamation programs throughout the west; and

• Preserves the linkages among the various CALFED objectives by requiring that

projects recommended for funding be sent to Congress in a bundled package

through the annual report process. This beneficially forces the stakeholder interests to work together to solve one of California’s most pressing issues.

We believe the CALFED legislation has the ability to end decades of stalemate

in the Bay–Delta and provide dramatic improvements for multiple beneficiaries.

By providing federal leadership to seek a balanced solution, you greatly increase

the likelihood that CALFED agencies will achieve the objectives and actions that

will move us forward together.

Responses to Questions. Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation you asked us

to provide testimony to this panel that focused on three questions.

Question 1: What factors have led to the challenges that Southern California is facing today in regards to water supply, quality and reliability?

The fundamental challenge of water management in Southern California and

throughout the nation is to meet the increasing needs of our customers while ensuring high water quality and protecting and restoring fisheries.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, California experienced a six-year dry spell, one

of the most severe over the last 70 years. During that time, water users also inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
7

curred additional limits on their supplies when two fish species (winter-run salmon

and Delta smelt) were listed by federal agencies. With reduced supplies from both

the dry spell and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements, the State Water

Project (SWP) found itself limited on pumping during both wet and dry conditions.

During this six-year period, the SWP supplies fell more than six million acre-feet

under contract entitlements (see Chart 1). Water losses for ESA and other fishery

regulations totaled 1.4 million acre-feet during dry years, almost one-third of dryyear supplies under the state and federal water supply contracts.

In addition, increased public health concerns and drinking water quality regulations have also challenged our approaches to providing high quality, low-cost supplies.

Over the last decade, while drinking water quality regulations have increasingly

become more stringent, little progress has been made to bring source water quality

for Delta exporters in line with national averages. Delta water currently contains

levels of bromide that are six times higher than the national average. Bromide and

trihalomethanes both raise public health concerns because of possible links to cancer.High concentrations of salinity also degrade groundwater basins and impede efforts to recycle and reuse water.

Although Metropolitan is a nationally recognized leader in funding research and

implementing new cost-effective treatment technologies, the technical challenges

and costs of removing contaminants from drinking water supplies can be staggering.

Currently, the best method to control water quality is at the source.

If urban water agencies are forced to abandon quality at the source and instead

rely on alternative treatment technologies, the capital and operating/maintenance of

these alternative technologies could exceed the cost of conventional treatment by

over 1,000 percent.

In summary, the factors that have lead to an almost certain crisis that would

dwarf by comparison the current energy situation are:

• The lack of sufficient storage above and below the Delta to manage efficiently

the competing demands of our environment and economy;

• The inefficient conveyance systems in and through the Delta that are causing

rapidly deteriorating water quality for consumers and fish; and

• Lack of adequate financing for local resource development.

Question 2: What actions and measures have you taken to improve upon

your water supply, quality and reliability?

Metropolitan over the last few years has gone through a dramatic change in policy

direction and has begun to aggressively develop a new water management paradigm

to meet water quality, supply reliability and environmental needs.

Metropolitan has remained steadfast in our support for the environment, sound

science and efficient water management practices. We have been a leader in funding

and coordinating the implementation of early-start environmental restoration and

scientific monitoring programs. We have also been a driving force at initiating new,

more efficient water management tools to allow us to adjust to changing regulatory

requirements. We fundamentally believe California needs a stable environment to

ensure a stable economy.

Metropolitan’s strategy for water storage has changed. The old vision called for

storing water upstream of the Delta and pushing it through the Delta during

drought periods. The new vision calls for banking surplus water south of the Delta

in wet periods to meet contractual commitments during drought years. This allows

for reduced export pumping and increased Delta outflows for fisheries in during dry

periods.

Local resource development has also played a vital role at Metropolitan in managing the impacts of increasing environmental regulation and urban demand for imported water supplies.

Current efforts to conserve and recycle water have produced more than 710,000

acre-feet per year. This is comparable to the current combined annual water supply

for the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Francisco.

Metropolitan’s resource plan also calls for doubling recycling and adding 400,000

acre-feet of groundwater production. This is simply not possible without low salinity

Delta water.

Based on a study commissioned by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

in 1996, Southern California water agencies and taxpayers have spent more than

$8 billion in water conservation, water recycling and storage since the early 1980s.

Metropolitan and its member agencies are committed to invest another $8 billion

by the year 2020 in the development of Southern California’s local supply and storage programs.

8

These resource management strategies will have reduced Southern California’s

dependence on Bay–Delta supplies during critically dry years, like 1977 and 1991,

from 35% to 12% by year 2020.

While these new strategies are proving effective at filling the 1990s supply gap

with real water (see Chart 2), we still need to implement the water supply actions

in the CALFED Record of Decision to meet the needs of the environment and the

economy.

In summary, Metropolitan has taken key steps to deal with changing circumstances. This includes:

• Changing the storage paradigm by developing surface and groundwater storage

south of the Delta; and

• Investing heavily in local resources, including extensive recycling and conservation and programs to maintain a full Colorado River Aqueduct.

But we need a successful statewide plan if these local resources are to be effective.

Question 3: What additional measures or assistance may be needed in the

short, mid, and long term to improve your water security?

Metropolitan is committed to working with the Congress and stakeholder interests to move the CALFED authorization legislation forward. We will also work to

ensure the final CALFED authorization legislation embodies the following legislative principles. These principles include:

A Stable and Effective Governance Mechanism. The legislation should promote

creation of an effective governance mechanism, which adequately represents Southern California urban interests and assures stable and balanced implementation of

the entire CALFED program.

• In 1994, the Bay–Delta Accord created a partnership between the state and federal governments, along with a broad array of water agencies and stakeholders.

• We need to continue this partnership to provide a more secure and favorable

political environment for dealings with stakeholder concerns.

Funding for Water Quality Projects, including Complementary Actions. Water

quality is our top priority! The CALFED legislation must assure that water quality

projects, including those identified as ‘‘complementary actions’’ in the CALFED

Record of Decision, are eligible and can effectively compete for funding within the

CALFED authorization legislation. These water quality program elements include:

• Source protection measures to safeguard Bay–Delta drinking water supplies for

22 million Americans.

• Water storage and conveyance solutions to protect the integrity of drinking

water supplies as they journey from the source to two-thirds of all Californian

households;

• Support for innovative urban-agricultural partnerships, such as the partnership

between Metropolitan and the Friant Water Users Authority, to improve source

water quality, assure agricultural water supply, and provide water for fisheries

restoration; and

• Water treatment technology research initiatives to improve micro filtration and

ultraviolet disinfection technologies.

Funding for Local and Statewide Supply Reliability Projects. Authorization must

be clearly provided for the full range of actions contained in the CALFED Bay–Delta

Program to increase water supply reliability, including investments in local resources, improvements in through-delta conveyance, and additional surface and

groundwater storage consistent with the CALFED Framework Agreement and

Record of Decision.

A Stable Regulatory Environment. The legislation should contain provisions that

require environmental restoration to be accomplished in a manner that assures reliability of water supplies for the State Water Project, Central Valley Project, and

other water users.

Funding for Environmental Restoration. The legislation must authorize adequate

funding for the Environmental Water Account and Environmental Restoration Program defined in the CALFED Record of Decision to assure balanced progress of environmental restoration and improvements in water quality and supply reliability.

The CALFED ecosystem restoration program is one of the largest environmental

programs ever undertaken in the nation. Habitat restoration in the Bay–Delta watershed translates into environmental and ‘‘economic’’ benefits for both the Colorado

and Columbia River Basin. The CALFED Program is also key to supporting Pacific

salmon fisheries and waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway.

Metropolitan supports legislative provisions that promote environmental habitat

improvements while protecting private landowners.

Elements of CALFED environmental program include:

9

• Installing screens on water diversions to protect fishery resources, thus eliminating a major source of fish mortality;

• Removing dams on tributary streams to open up previously inaccessible fishery

spawning grounds; and

• Acquiring conservation easements and habitat acquisitions from willing sellers.

Implementation of Environmental Water Account to Meet Endangered Species Act

Requirements. The legislation should authorize Environmental Water Account

(EWA) implementation to provide additional environmental water above the regulatory baseline, while protecting the reliability of urban and agricultural water supplies. The first priority for use of EWA water should be to meet the requirements

of the Endangered Species Act with other ecosystem purposes having second priority.

• Federal authorization of the EWA will also provide support for the resource

agencies to shift from regulatory-based operating procedures to more flexible operating procedures. Combined with improved monitoring, we believe this flexible operating strategy provides more water to the fisheries when needed and

conserves limited supplies.

Timely Permitting and Implementation of Projects. The legislation should provide

for regulatory coordination and streamlining to assure timely implementation of

CALFED projects and should protect the resource mix of demand management actions and infrastructure development agreed to in the CALFED Framework Agreement and Record of Decision.

Sound Science. The legislation should authorize adequate funds for a strong, independent and objective science board to assure that CALFED-related decisions are

based on the best-possible scientific information. The science Board should develop

clear criteria to measure the success of ecosystem actions and adjust the restoration

program in a timely manner in response to whether or not the success criteria are

achieved.

• We cannot continue to solely focus on Delta outflows for the environment. We

need to continue implement and monitor habitat restoration, pollution prevention, and exotic species control.

• We also need to implement the drinking water quality goals and actions outlined in the CALFED Record of Decision.

Ending Statement

Mr. Chairman, your CALFED authorization legislation has aligned the federal

government with a new direction in water management in California.

If we follow this new direction, California will not have to choose between the environment and the economy.

It is in everyone’s interest to ‘‘seize the opportunity’’ you have provided to improve

California’s resources and enhance water and environmental programs throughout

the West.

We at Metropolitan are dedicated to working with you, Mr. Chairman, members

of the subcommittee, Senator Feinstein, and all others in developing a workable approach to implement a balanced CALFED Bay–Delta program.

]An attachment to Mr. Gastelum’s statement follows:]

10

11

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GRINDSTAFF, GENERAL MANAGER,

SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Napolitano, thank you very

much for this opportunity to testify today. My name is Joe

Grindstaff and I’m the General Manager of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, a map of which you see before you. The

Santa Ana Watershed is the largest coastal watershed in Southern

California. It covers the western end of Riverside and San

Bernardino County, most of Orange County, and even a portion of

Los Angeles County, and is home to more than 5 million people.

Before I begin, I first want to state that our agency also is wholeheartedly in support of your bill, the California Water Security Enhancement Act. We believe it is a major step forward and will help

all of us in this state maintain the water supplies that we need for

the future.

Mr. Chairman, unless we put guards on the county lines and salt

peter in the water, our population is going to grow from 5 million

to 7 million people within the next 20 years.

This next chart you’ll see what the natural progression of water

demand would be. Even assuming that we fully implement all of

the best management practices, the top line shows that we would

begin to need to import more water rather than less even in the

face of decreasing supplies from Northern California and from the

Colorado River.

We have developed a plan that will allow us in normal years to

actually decrease our imported water even while our population increases and in drought years to actually be able to totally roll off

the system in order to do what we call drought proofing. That is

the goal of our region is to drought-proof the Santa Ana river watershed.

The main elements of our plan are water quality improvements,

water recycling, ground water storage, and we incorporate even

things such as flood control and habitat restoration, even some recreational elements, and they all integrate. They all fit together.

Later today you will hear from Mr. Rich Atwater and Mr. Larry

Libeu, both representing two of our member agencies.

The projects and programs that they implement will have a positive impact on the whole watershed, not just on their area. Our

agencies are committed to drought-proofing the region and we will

make the financial resources available to help make that happen

but we need your help.

Our goal briefly is to clean up the ground water basins and make

them more usable for potable use and for storage. Second goal is

to store about 1.5 million acre-feet of water in the ground for use

during drought. That’s twice as much as is in Diamond Valley Lake

which is a significant contribution.

Additionally our goal is to recycle more than 300,000 acre-feet of

water per year. That’s how we would reduce our normal year demands so significantly.

Another element is to remove Arundo. Arundo Donax, which

some of you are aware of, I know the Chairman is aware of

Arundo, it is a giant cane which uses water much more than native

habitat does but also causes problems for flood control and for fire

departments. In addition to having all of those benefits, that will

12

help offset, for example, demands for water in the watershed as we

grow.

As the upper watershed recycles more water, Orange County

might be concerned about the flow of water in the river, but removing Arundo helps to mitigate those decreases in flow as we begin

to do more and more to use our resources wisely.

In conclusion, we are committed to supporting you to help move

this legislation through. We believe that it is critical for the future

of California that we find a way to solve our problems. We can do

it and we support your efforts. Thank you very much.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grindstaff follows:]

Statement of P. Joseph Grindstaff, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed

Project Authority

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today. The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA)

represents the Santa Ana River Watershed. This river is the largest coastal river

system in Southern California and flows from the San Bernardino Mountains over

100 miles southwesterly to the Pacific Ocean at Huntington Beach. The watershed

covers over 2650 square miles of widely-varying terrain. This area, which includes

parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, was home

to 5.1 million people during the 2000 census. The population is expected to increase

to 7 million by 2020. SAWPA was founded in 1972 after eighty years of controversy

and court battles, that at one time included more than three thousand parties.

These parties agreed ultimately to appoint the large wholesale water agencies as

watermaster, to represent their rights and they formed SAWPA as a way to really

solve problems, rather than just fight. Today SAWPA has five member agencies,

Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District, San

Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency and

Orange County Water District. These agencies each have different individual interests, but share the global responsibility to insure there is reliable, high quality

water available for all the people of the region.

The Challenges

Southern California is facing many challenges. The factors that have led to the

challenges are myriad; law, regulation, population growth, water quality concerns,

historical disputes between water users and many more. Southern California has

done a good job managing in spite of these challenges. Water demand has remained

level for many years, while the population was increasing. The water supply available from the Colorado River is decreasing because of the 4.4 plan. The water available from Northern California has been caught up in massive disputes about protecting endangered species and habitat. The ability of water suppliers to respond

is limited by regulation and law. At the same time, water quality is more important

than ever. Drinking water standards are, rightly, more stringent than ever. Even

with implementation of all best-management practices in every single house and

business, the demand for clean water in our region will increase.

Inland Southern California is one of the fastest-growing regions in North America,

and its continuing development has brought water supply challenges of previously

unknown proportions. The engineers and water leaders of today have many advantages that civilizations of the past lacked—better science and construction techniques to name just two. But the modern era has brought obstacles as well. Never

before have water policymakers faced today’s high level of ecological sensitivity. A

public mandate for environmental stewardship has taken center stage, and the heyday of on-stream dams appears to have drawn to a close. Local and statewide leaders are now scrambling to quench the Inland Empire’s growing thirst, but development in other parts of the West and changing attitudes elsewhere in California are

taming our aspirations for new imported supplies.

Passage of the March 2000 statewide water bond has enabled a much broader

pursuit of SAWPA’s program goals. By restoring the area’s worn-out groundwater

basins, enhancing natural percolation of rainwater underground and, in effect, creating more than 1,300,000 acre-feet of currently unusable storage capacity, SAWPA

expects to drought proof the entire watershed within twenty years. Not only will

13

this protect us from having to buy expensive imported water during dry years, but

it will also leave more water for agriculture, wildlife and cities throughout California.

In order for the SAWPA program to be fully implemented and for it to meet all

the stated goals SAWPA will need additional funding to the existing state bond

funds. It will be our request that this come in the form of Federal matching funds,

additional funds from future state water bonds and local funding from water agencies and consumers.

What SAWPA is Doing

Integrating the management of surface water, groundwater, habitat, groundwater

cleanup and groundwater banking is the task of SAWPA. This integrated program

implemented quickly and carefully offers the real capability to drought proof the region. The plan will recycle water and clean up contaminated water in order to reduce imported water demand and will store or bank water in groundwater basins

during wet years and withdraw it during droughts. To do this effectively, the

projects must be tightly coordinated and all activities integrated.

SAWPA’s efforts to provide such a program were greatly improved by the passage

of the Water Bond on March 7, 2000. Chapter 6, Article 5, the Southern California

Integrated Watershed Program, was intended by the legislature to fulfill this opportunity. Many members of the legislature worked to insure this section was included

in the Water Bond. Matching Federal funds for the Water Bond will make these

projects the broadest integrated program for reclaimed water, cooperative groundwater management and drought preparedness in California. Having access to good

quality water under all conditions is a requirement for the regions’ residents, industry, farms and environment.

The CALFED framework agreement proposes the development of 50,000 acre feet

per year (AFY) of new reclaimed water capacity each year. In the Santa Ana Watershed, about 100,000 AFY is currently reclaimed. Some of the projects funding has

been through Title XVI, some through other federal, state, regional and local programs. I want to take this opportunity to brag about some of these projects and programs. The Irvine Ranch has been the national example of the benefits of recycling

for years with approximately 16,000 AFY of reclamation to support wetlands and

landscape irrigation demands. The Green Acres project has provided about 9,000

AFY of reclamation for Orange County. The Water Factory 21 was the first project

of its kind in the nation, taking reclaimed water and putting it though reverse osmosis and injecting the project water into the ground to form a seawater barrier.

The Inland Empire Utility Agency program has reclaimed over 23,000 AFY for municipal and industrial irrigation use. The EMWD program has created an effective

reclaimed water system that reclaims over 43,000 AFY of treated effluent for largely

agricultural irrigation use. These projects are functioning and demonstrate the benefit of recycling wastewater in an arid region. The region has plans to increase that

100,000 AFY capacity to over 300,000 AFY over the next twenty years.

SAWPA and local water leaders have stepped up to face of these rising challenges,

bringing solutions to these problems that will drought proof the region. While we

hold little hope for additional water imports, we are making great progress in exciting new water storage and supply technologies. By working to maximize the Santa

Ana Basin’s potential for water storage underground—a practice known as ‘‘water

banking’’—we are not only preparing ourselves for normal water years, but for

drought cycles as well.

SAWPA is the hub for Santa Ana Watershed planning. SAWPA’s largest success

to date has been securing more than $250 million dollars in state money from the

passage of Proposition 13’the most recent statewide water bond. The Proposition 13

funds will be used directly by SAWPA to enable a number of vitally important local

water projects in this watershed to move forward.

The Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Program (IWP) consists of six major project

categories:

• Groundwater Cleanup and Purification will mitigate negative groundwater impacts from nearly a century of agricultural and other industrial land use practices;

• Water Storage will enable much of the Watershed to withstand a major statewide drought by storing upwards of 1,300,000 acre-feet of new water underground throughout the basin;

• Flood Protection will keep lives and property safe along the Santa Ana River

main stem;

• Wetlands, Habitat and the Environment welcomes a new era of man-made and

natural wetlands that has potential to restore the West’s now-hindered Pacific

Flyway;

14

• Water Recycling is the product of a major attitude shift in water use, and the

IWP encourages recycling as a means to reduce our area’s overall consumption;

and

• Recreation and Conservation will bring much-needed recreational opportunities

to the region, providing access to open spaces and increasing public awareness

of the Santa Ana’s environmental needs and purpose.

These six project categories will be pursued simultaneously, meeting the Santa

Ana Watershed’s water supply and flood control needs in a manner that will enhance wildlife habitat in our area and throughout the West Coast. The IWP process

has collected and aggregated project needs from SAWPA member agencies, water

districts, cities, counties as well as suggestions from a number of environmental

groups and parks agencies. The various interests were consolidated into the project

categories stated above.

Federal Benefits

The federal benefits of this program are great. In both CALFED and the 4.4 Plan

the reuse of water is critical to maintaining water supply for the region. The

CALFED framework agreement calls for 50,000 AF per year in new water recycling.

The only way this kind of objective can be reached is if both the federal and state

government help with funding. It will take a major commitment. This will allow all

water users in the west to be sure of their water allotment and in the future will

provide a path for water supply development that can be replicated.

Salt Removal and Groundwater Cleanup

Any recycling program that does not address salt is remiss. The Bureau of Reclamation has included desalting as a part of the Southern California Comprehensive

Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. As the Santa Ana River and its tributaries

flow toward the sea, the water percolates into the stream system, recharging the

35 groundwater basins that comprise the watershed. Water is pumped by farmers

and cities from the groundwater source and utilized for agricultural, municipal and

industrial supply. However, each use of the supply results in added salinity to the

water for the next user. The California Water Resources Control Board and the

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board closely monitor the impact of this

additional salt to the River to assure that the water supply is protected for downstream beneficial uses. As excess salt builds up in the groundwater, groundwater

banking and recycling projects are impeded. To facilitate the removal of salts the

integrated program will construct new desalters to remove excess salt that would

buildup in the basins and send it to the ocean through the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor, a regional brine line operated by SAWPA. The region has invested some

$130 million in the brine pipelines, $150 million in desalters and $40 million in additional brine and industrial waste treatment facilities.

By reducing the salt that remains in the watershed, the program can better balance salt generation and import with salt exports. The graph shows the reduction

in excess salt generated or imported in the watershed over the life of the program.

Desalting facilities such as the Arlington and Chino Basin desalters that are already

built remove over 15,000 tons of salt per year, and another 200,000 tons must be

removed to achieve a balance and cleanup the basin. This goal is both daunting and

doable with this program. Desalters also remove other harmful contaminants and

pollution from the groundwater and work to make the groundwater basins capable

of storing the water needed for droughts.

15

Groundwater Banking

Groundwater banking is key to the future water supply of Southern California.

It is essential to prevent the need for more imported water in the watershed and

provide reliable water during drought periods. Over the last thirty years, the Santa

Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) and its member agencies Eastern Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Orange County Water District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and Western Municipal

Water District have been leaders in planning and dealing with the complex problems in watershed management. Their efforts have led to significant projects involving water conservation and clean up of contamination. SAWPA and its member

agencies have also been working along with others to prepare for groundwater banking. Major efforts are underway to store large quantities of water in many of the

basins in the watershed. Projects to remove salt and recycle water are already underway.

The chart at right shows a projection of groundwater storage capacity that can

be utilized over the next 20 years. The amount of storage will vary based on the

amount of wet year water available for banking and any drought needs served during these years. Storage of the additional water must be matched with the capability to extract, treat, and deliver the water for use. SAWPA and its member agencies along with others will make this a reality.

Near Term Facilities and Projects

To accomplish these ambitious goals, desalting projects are planned in the Chino,

San Jacinto and Orange County groundwater basins. Surface water capture and

percolation projects are planned to capture and transfer surface and recycled water

into the subsurface for storage. Flood control projects will be completed to allow

water to be put into storage and prevent waste and contaminated water from entering the system.

16

Habitat Enhancement

Steel and concrete are not the only important projects in the watershed. In the

Santa Ana River a non-native species Arundo donax (giant cane) has come to dominate some 10,000 acres of riparian habitat. Many native species do not prosper in

the environment created by this Arundo. The giant cane is also a significant fire

hazard, and has cost millions of dollars and ravaged the environment each time it

burns. After each fire the native flora typically requires much longer growing times

and when it grows back is much less dense so the Arundo expands its grip on the

environment. From the perspective of water supply, most observers estimate that

if the Arundo were removed and replaced with native species, some 10,000 Acre

Feet (AF) of water per year could be saved. One respected University of California

scientist estimates that 37,000 AF of water per year could be saved. Protecting habitat enhances water supply in other ways. Examples include the use of open space

to percolate water into the ground, or creating wetlands that clean water while preserving habitat. Projects restoring native habitat and creating wetlands or open

space, which can be used for many purposes, have been developed by many agencies

in this region. SAWPA envisions expanding these activities with a long-term program designed to specifically manage, expand and improve the habitat in the region,

while at the same time obtaining a benefit for wildlife, water quality and self-sufficiency.

Wetlands Creation and Enhancement

Natural and created or enhanced (managed) wetlands have multiple benefits both

to the environment and to man. The majority of water in the Santa Ana River would

have been processed by a marsh or wetland of some type if humans had not modified the landscape. The recreation of wetlands in areas where they have historically

prospered and the enhancement of existing wetlands benefit native species, reduce

contaminants in the water, lower sediment transport and support endangered and

threatened species in the area of the river. SAWPA will work with its members, environmental, conservation, and parks agencies to create and enhance wetlands to

achieve the benefits wetlands bring to the watershed. SAWPA also coordinates with

other agencies supporting the Santa Ana River Trail, (SART) a multi-use trail system to link trails throughout Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. As

SAWPA proceeds with efforts to remove the invasive Arundo, a corridor for the

SART along the river will be created. In addition, SAWPA and Orange County

Water District hold land and rights-of-way in areas along the river. Arundo removal

may be the one opportunity to provide access to the river in many areas because

of environmental sensitivity everywhere else along the river.

Water Recycling

California is learning a hard lesson these days. In addition to making new water

available through innovative groundwater storage projects, we need to learn to

squeeze as much as possible from our existing supplies. Good old-fashioned water

conservation at the user level is obviously a good starting point for this goal, but

technology has opened up some other options as well. Some of the most important

and promising opportunities are in the area of water recycling.

In addition, some industries have found that they don’t need the most pristine

water quality available for their particular enterprise. Why, for instance, would golf

course sprinklers need the same quality of water that a restaurant would? With this

in mind SAWPA is looking to expand recycling activities throughout the region, and

we expect to be reusing 145,000 acre-feet of water by the year 2020. Recycled water

is not an option for every area, so SAWPA’s member agencies are working with local

governments and even specific companies to find the most beneficial, targeted recycling projects

Recreation and Conservation

SAWPA’s goals go beyond enhancing local water supply and expanding regional

wetlands for wildlife improvement. It also seeks to create opportunities for the public to enjoy the area’s waterways to the fullest extent possible. Ensuring access to

the region’s wetlands, lakes and streams will enable locals to see first-hand how

their very own water source also makes a substantial contribution to waterfowl migration and wildlife in general. We anticipate that this most visible of SAWPA contributions will find a warm reception with residents in the Santa Ana River Basin

and look forward to showcasing the environment locally.

The recreation and conservation component of the IWP will be fulfilled throughout

the overall duration of our project. We will be looking to build bicycle paths and

other trails as new wetlands are created and more riparian habitat is made available by way of Arundo removal.

17

The Opportunity

The principal opportunity and challenge facing everyone is not technical, but to

bring competing interests into alignment so that we can all envision a future where

the water resources and river environment we leave to our children and grandchildren are well managed, of high quality and adequate to meet their needs. All

stakeholders whether they be cities, businesses, regulators, farms, wildlife or environment interests must have their needs addressed for the watershed, the state and

the nation to be successful. Providing policy leadership for the nation and the state

is essential to prevent the mistakes and dilemma’s of the past and to insure

proactive and responsible progress is made in water. SAWPA believes and is committed to regional and watershed based planning, with local implementation of

projects of long-range goals

Federal Measures and Assistance

The US Congress can help significantly by funding local water reclamation and

ground water storage projects to a much larger extent than they have been funded

in the past. If the western United States is to become truly have a sustainable

water supply, water recycling (or reclamation) is key. Under Congressional direction

the US Bureau of Reclamation has just completed a six-year study showing what

the potential for water recycling is. They have identified 500,000 acre-feet per year

of recycling that could be on line by 2010. Groundwater storage in southern California combined with reclamation could potentially store enough water to totally

protect the economy from a drought for the next twenty or thirty years. Federal

funding of a part of the cost of the development of this water is key. Federal law

and regulation have been part of the problem and federal projects (the Colorado

River and Central Valley Project) are impacted significantly. The truth is that if the

State and Federal government do not contribute significant resources, water recycling will not expand rapidly. The federal government should provide incentives for

multipurpose, multibeneficiary projects that consider both the environmental and

habitat aspects, as well as water supply and quality implications.

Governance of this resource is a critical issue. All major stakeholders must feel

they are at the table, but ultimately decisions need to be made in a timely way.

If we do not all work together water supplies that have long sustained significant

uses, will dry up, probably in a drought, resulting in greater economic dislocation

than necessary and deterioration in the quality of life for our children and grandchildren throughout the western part of the country. For your information, a summary of the federal funding needs for our watershed is attached below. Thank you

for your time and attention. If you or your staff have any questions or would like

more detailed information, please let me know.

Federal Funding Needs

Local water agencies have demonstrated great responsibility in working together

to bring about this broad-based stakeholder partnership. Collectively, the many diverse groups representing water interests in the basin are seeing real progress in

drought-proofing the region, improving water quality and groundwater management, and fully integrating the environment and habitat into water resource planning. The vigilance of regional water agencies in helping to build a sustainable future while at the same time seeking to improve our overall quality of life should

not be overlooked.

We anticipate opportunities nationally to receive additional funding for projects

that are already underway, as well as ones that have not yet been initiated. Local

water policy makers understand that there will be a high degree of regional responsibility for project funding as well. SAWPA also anticipates future opportunities to

take advantage of statewide bond measures similar to Proposition 13.

Funding support for the watershed is needed to match the local and state funds

that were overwhelmingly approved by the electorate of California on March 7, 2000

for the SAWPA Integrated Watershed Program.

SAWPA has six programs in the Integrated Watershed Program (IWP). Each program is listed below along with the total federal appropriations requirements and

a listing of significant example projects. Appropriations in fiscal year 2002 and 2003

are critical to allow the program to leverage California Proposition 13 funds. New

and existing authorizations of these projects occur under a variety of methods, including the water bills under consideration, USBR and USACOE, among others.

Water Quality Improvement -- $15.4M FY 2002 -- $34.7M FY 2003

Desalting and groundwater treatment in the Chino Basin, Menifee, Orange County,

and other areas will mitigate the impacts of nearly a century of agricultural, industrial, and other pollution now in the groundwater.

18

Water Recycling -- $15.2M FY 2002 -- $33.2M FY 2003

Significant water recycling projects, like OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System and the Chino Basin Recycling Program, help to make the most of the limited

water available to the watershed.

Water Storage -- $8.9M FY 2002 -- $10.5M FY 2003

Groundwater storage in the Chino, Bunker Hill, Orange County, and San Jacinto

basins will ultimately store as much as 1.3 million acre-feet of water needed to

drought-proof Southern California and provide for growth over the next 20 years.

Flood Protection -- $3.2M FY 2002 -- $3.9M FY 2003

Reducing flooding in the rural and urban areas of the watershed will provide significant water quality improvements and safeguards lives and property.

Wetlands Env. and Habitat -- $14.2M FY 2002 -- $13.2M FY 2003

Environmental and habitat programs save and clean water, improve habitat, and

reduce the impact of urbanization on the watershed. Some examples are the removal of the invasive exotic weed, Arundo Donnax; creating water treatment wetlands; and improving native wetlands and the river system.

Recreation and Conservation -- $9.8M FY 2002 -- $32.8M FY 2003

Completing the Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway and related planned projects,

such as the River Wash Loop, will provide recreational opportunities, economic enhancement, and an added understanding of the watershed and its connection to the

potable water supply.

Total Watershed Program -- $66.9M FY 2002 -- $128.2M FY 2003

STATEMENT OF STEVE KOFFROTH, OFFICE MANAGER,

AFSCME, LOCAL 1902

Mr. KOFFROTH. Chairman Calvert, Ms. Napolitano, we thank you

for this opportunity to testify before you on the security and importance of water in Southern California.

My name is Steve Koffroth and I’m here today on behalf of the

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,

Local 1902. Our Executive President was unable to attend today.

Just as a matter of introduction, AFSCME is a public sector

union who represents about 1.3 million public sector employees

across the nation. Specifically, Local 1902 represents managers and

employees at the Metropolitan Water Districts and other smaller

water districts within MWD’s service area. In total, we represent

about 1,800 employees and the interests of all water workers in the

region.

AFSCME Local 1902 is also a founder and participant in the

California AFSCME Water Caucus, whose membership includes

some of the largest water providers within the state, including

MWD, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San

Diego City County employees, and some other water districts within the state. In all, AFSCME represents about 3,000 water workers

within the state and substantially more nationwide.

I want to say we are in support of this bill. It’s encouraging to

see such a great effort to address the security of the world’s secondmost import resource as water is subordinate only to air, in our

opinion, and specifically how we can achieve a balanced solution

that moves the various CALFED stakeholders forward and together.

19

Specifically we’ve been asked to respond to one of the questions

about what long-term, mid-term, short-term assistance we may see

needed. Certainly we recognize the need and importance of the

CALFED program and we are committed to working with Congress

and the various stakeholders to move the CALFED authorization

legislation forward.

To that end we have several legislative principles that we want

to make sure are addressed and I believe are very well addressed

within this bill.

The first is having An Effective Governance Mechanism. The legislation should promote the creation of an effective governance

mechanism which adequately represents all Southern California interests and assures stable and balanced implementation of the entire CALFED program.

The CALFED financing programs discuss the need and importance of having all the stakeholders involved and they brought together many of the interests in creating a statewide partnership.

Indeed, we have been able to reach consensus on a number of

issues that will serve to strengthen the security of water. We are

concerned, however, that CALFED has not adequately reached out

to all the stakeholders which disregards or otherwise discounts important issues that can and should be brought to the table.

Second, Funding for Water Projects. As I said before, water is

nearly the most important resource we have. If we cannot assure

that this resource is available and reliable, we threaten the lives

of millions of residents, and we can do nothing to support future

growth.

The CALFED legislation must assure that water projects, including those directed at water quality, reliability, and environmental

protection, be adequately supported in direct correlation to the importance that this resource is to the population we serve.

Third, Careful Monitoring and Development of Water Marketing

Principles. This is our highest concern regarding the CALFED plan

and this affects important principles that must not be disregarded

or unnecessarily placed in a subordinate position. Although this

concern may be addressed through effective governance structure,

it is important for the legislature, in and of itself, to take proactive

steps to ensure and stress the importance of and improve the security of water.

Clearly, CALFED’s direction has been to investigate methods

that will encourage or otherwise facilitate transfers. In fact, the

Record of Decision specifically notes that the plan’s success hinges

on this issue. We have been concerned that this priority will lead

to unnecessarily hasty decisions or plans and place blinders on the

long-term outlook of the impact to all stakeholders.

We’ve also included in my testimony a copy of a letter that we

wrote to CALFED regarding this issue which outlines some of

these concerns. So far we have seen few, if any, methods or means

to address these issues.

As we have seen recently with electricity, lack of long-term planning or disregard of the long-term impacts of resource supply lead

to tremendous instability and insecurity thereby negatively impacting the public we serve.

20

Aside from water price and availability, the potential impacts

created by water transfers include increased agricultural prices,

farm worker job losses, public sector job losses, loss of suppliers,

sprawl and environmental hazards, political accountability and

stranded infrastructure and personnel costs.

Although the EWA and other transfer processes may help to address supply issues, they must not be implemented or developed

without adequate input from all affected parties and due regard to

all the possible impacts.

Fourth, Continued Study and Research. The legislation should

provide assurances that continued research and study are performed so that any water related decisions are based on the most

current and best possible information to allow us to develop clear

criteria to measure the success of our actions and adjust any portion of these programs in a timely manner.

Mr. Chairman, your CALFED authorization legislation is a great

opportunity. We are behind you. We hope to work forward with you

and make that process happen for everyone in Southern California.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koffroth follows:]

Statement of Steve Koffroth, Office Manager, American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees, Local 1902

Introduction:

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to testify before you regarding the security and importance of water in Southern California.

My name is Steve Koffroth and I am here today on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1902, as our

Executive President Robert Reeves was unable to attend.

AFSCME is a public sector Union who represents over 1.3 million public sector

employees across the nation.

Specifically, Local 1902 represents the employees and managers of Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California and other smaller water districts within

MWD’s service area. In total, we represent approximately 1800 employees and the

interests of all water workers in the region.

AFSCME Local 1902 is also a founder and member of the California AFSCME

Water Caucus, whose membership includes some of the largest water providers in

California, including MWD, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Santa Clara Valley

Water District, and San Diego City water employees. In all, AFSCME represents

approximately 3000 water workers in California alone and substantially more nationwide.

It is encouraging to see such a great effort to address the security of the world’s

second most important resource (as water is subordinate only to air), and specifically how to achieve a balanced solution that moves the various CALFED stakeholders forward and together.

Response:

We have been specifically asked to respond to the question, ‘‘What measures or

assistance may be needed in the short, mid and long term to improve water security

in Southern California?’’

We certainly recognize the need and importance of the CALFED program, and we

are committed to working with the Congress and the various stakeholders to move

the CALFED authorization legislation forward. To that end, we support the following legislative principles to assure a balanced CALFED program:

1. An Effective Governance Mechanism. The legislation should promote creation

of an effective governance mechanism, which adequately represents ALL Southern

California interests and assures stable and balanced implementation of the entire

CALFED program.

CALFED plans and programs discuss the need and importance of involving

all stakeholders, and they have brought together many interests in creating

21

a statewide partnership. Indeed, we have been able to reach consensus on

a number of issues that will serve to strengthen the security of water. We

are concerned however that CALFED has not adequately reached out to all

stakeholders, which disregards or otherwise discounts important issues that

can and should be brought to the table.

2. Funding for Water Projects. As I said before, water is nearly the most important resource we have. If we cannot assure that this resource is available and reliable, we threaten the lives of millions of residents, and we can do nothing to support

future growth. The CALFED legislation must assure that water projects, including

those directed at water quality, reliability, and environmental protection, be adequately supported in direct correlation with the importance of this resource to the

residents we serve.

3. Careful Monitoring and Development of Water Marketing Principles. This is

our highest concern regarding the CALFED plans, and affects important principles

that must not be disregarded or unnecessarily placed in a subordinate position. Although this concern may be addressed through effective governance structure, it is

important for the legislature, in and of itself, to take proactive steps to stress the

importance of and improve the security of water.

Clearly, CALFED’s direction has been to investigate methods that will encourage or otherwise facilitate water transfers. In fact, the ROD specifically

notes that the plan’s success hinges on this issue. We have been concerned

that this priority will lead to unnecessarily hasty decisions and place blinders on the long-term outlook of the impacts to all stakeholders.

I have included a copy of the letter we wrote to CALFED, which outlines

some of these concerns. So far, we have seen few, if any, method or means

to address these issues.

As we have seen recently with electricity, lack of long-term planning or disregard of the long-term impacts of resource supply, lead to tremendous instability and insecurity—thereby negatively impacting the public we serve.

Aside from water price and availability, the potential impacts created by

water transfers include: increased agriculture prices, farm worker job

losses, public sector job losses, loss of suppliers, sprawl and environmental

hazards, political accountability and stranded infrastructure and personnel

costs.

Although the EWA and other transfer processes may help to address supply

issues, they must not be implemented or developed without adequate input

from all affected parties and due regard to all the possible impacts.

4. Continued Study and Research. The legislation should provide assurances that

continued research and study are performed so that any water-related decisions are

based on the most current and best-possible information. This will allow us to develop clear criteria to measure the success of our actions and adjust any portion of

these programs in a timely manner.

Conclusion:

Mr. Chairman, your CALFED authorization legislation has created a great opportunity to address resource management not only in California, but Nationwide.

We now have the potential of moving along a path where California doesn’t have

to choose between the environment and the economy.

We at AFSCME are dedicated to working with you, Mr. Chairman, members of

the subcommittee, and all others in developing and implementing a workable and

balanced CALFED Bay–Delta program.

Mr. CALVERT. I would like to welcome Hilda Solis on our panel

today, a valued member of our Subcommittee.

Mr. Gastelum, if we go into another dry period, and I guess most

statisticians would say we are due for another drought—hopefully

that’s not the case—but without this legislation, how difficult

would it be to meet our water demand in the future?

Mr. GASTELUM. It will be impossible if I could say it bluntly. If

we don’t do the kinds of things that the record of decision has

pointed to, we will not be able to meet the future needs whether

we grow or not. Just with the existing demand we will not be able

to do that in extended dry periods.

22

Mr. CALVERT. So without this infrastructure we will not be able

to meet the demand in 20 years. So what role should the Federal

Government play?

Mr. GASTELUM. Well, the Federal Government is a major player

as the administrator, so to speak, of the Colorado River supply. As

well as the administrator of the Central Valley project, the Federal

Government is a major player in water. The Federal Government

has taken a proactive role locally as well with the development of

infrastructures throughout the state of California, as well as recycling and conservation.

The Federal Government is deeply involved in water management in the state of California. This is an opportunity for the Federal Government, local water agencies, all the stakeholders to have

a consistent plan looking out 20 years ahead, an integrated, efficient management program where investments are being made not

just by the Federal Government but by the state and local entities

as well. It’s a tremendous opportunity for us as well to advert the

kind of crisis that you see in the electrical utility industry.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Grindstaff, obviously we’ve talked about the regional solution

that you have outlined in the Santa Ana watershed and why that

is important to California. Why do you believe Federal assistance

is necessary in order to put this project together?

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. As Mr. Gastelum indicated, we get a significant

amount of our water both from the Colorado River and from Northern California where the Federal Government has a significant interest. The Colorado River has long been the backbone of imported

water supply for the region and for the inland empire virtually all

of the imported water there comes from Northern California because of the salt load that comes from the Colorado River.

It’s critical that we address the water supply issues in that area

and the Federal Government has a major impact, as Mr. Gastelum

said, through the Colorado River and through the Central Valley

project, and also through it’s responsibility with the Endangered

Species Act in helping us to address the issues as we move ahead

in the future.

Mr. CALVERT. I think we all probably from your testimony in the

beginning understand why we’re here but one ought to give you an

opportunity to do that again. Why don’t you all three briefly describe why we find ourselves here in Southern California with a potential serious water crisis.

Mr. Koffroth, you may begin.

Mr. KOFFROTH. Well, I think if Southern California specifically

were able to rely on itself for its own water supply, we definitely

wouldn’t be here today. It’s important that as we move forward

that we have a plan that allows us to sustain the growth and the

population that is currently within this area.

Although it originally started out as a desert, as we have discussed today, it turned out to be a major metropolitan area supporting a large population, huge industry. I think that is something

that we cannot go without denying. As we said before water being

one of our most major resources, is vital in providing for the sustenance and growth of that community.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Grindstaff.

23

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. California, as usual, is in the leading position

on water. We have developed our economy and I think it is the

marvel of the world really and truly. California is going to set the

standard for the future, and Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma. This

is the beginning.

What we decide here is going to be replicated in the future in all

of the western states throughout the nation because none of them

have a sustainable long-term water supply. That is why we’re here.

We developed this nation, the west, without having that in place,

and we are building on the foundation that our forefathers laid but

it is something that we can and will do.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Gastelum.

Mr. GASTELUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Southern California is dependent upon imported water. Something like 60 percent of the

water consumed in Southern California is imported by the Metropolitan Water District.

I think you’ll see that our needs for more imported water are relatively modest and that is because we have an integrated program

here in Southern California that stresses recycling, conservation,

conjunctive use. I think if you look to the Proposition 13 past by

the voters recently, you see a broad-based approach.

Southern California does need imported water. We need a more

efficient reliable source of imported water. Not new sources really

but more efficiency and reliability in the existing sources. We need

better water quality.

The result if we get those things is actually greater benefit for

the other parts of the country. You have feast and famine in other

parts of—rather the state. The Central Valley is most stressed first

but with the kind of integrated system we’re talking about, we will

have more predictability for the environment, more predictability

for water users, and we will have the predictability for economy

generally of knowing 20 years out that we have taken care of this

issue. It sounds simple. I know it’s not but it is within our grasp

and I think if we don’t do that, we are going to be very sorry.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Napolitano.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that

I haven’t heard you state, and I know all three of you are in support of the Chairman’s bill, what is it that you should do to add— what would you add to that language to assist municipalities in the

Southern California area do their job better whether it’s the standpoint of labor of who actually has to do the work.

I’m speaking about water wells that have been contaminated.

They might help communities to deal with their own water to increase recycling. And one of the major things we haven’t talked

about is the effect of salinity in the cost of water delivery and how

that is going to affect any future dealing with the Colorado River

which is one of our main sources of the salinity.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Let me take a shot at that one. Mr. Gastelum

talked some about water quality. We did a calculation the other

day, just a rough estimate, on water from Northern California. As

I mentioned, because of salt loadings when we import water into

Riverside County and San Bernardino County most of that has to

be state project water.

24

If the water quality there is improved and maintained at a consistent level that is maybe 150 milligrams per liter, that will save

us in capital costs alone $160 TO $200 million on top of that untold

millions in operating and maintenance costs and untold millions of

kilowatt hours of power so water quality is an incredibly important

part of what needs to happen.

Another part that you mentioned was cleaning up the locally contaminated ground water supply. We have, in fact, in the Southern

California region some sources of water where we could use it if we

could clean it up, but that water is very expensive.

I’ll use an example. In an area behind our office we have the Arlington desalter. The Arlington basin was contaminated by citrus

that was grown from the 1880’s up to the 1940’s. That is not something that anybody knew at the time when they were growing oranges. That certainly wasn’t their intent but, in fact, that’s the

problem.

We now desalt the water and pump it out of that basin and that

water is used for drinking water but it is expensive. It would be

important for us to have assistance to help us do that kind of

thing. If we deal with water quality from Northern California, we

deal with cleaning up contaminated water locally to make use of

that.

When you do that, that also makes available ground water storage where you can put clean water in and store it when it’s available. Then you begin to have a real hope for maintaining our system even while we grow without using incredibly large amounts of

new imported water.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. So that would be a great boon is the ability to

clean some of the water and you wouldn’t have to import it.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Absolutely. As I read the bill, I think that there

is provision in there to allow for agencies to apply for grants to

help pay a portion of that cost so that instead of paying $800 an

acre-foot when the going rate for water is $400, maybe the city can

say, ‘‘We are willing to pay $600 if we can get the Federal Government and state government to help make that difference.’’ That’s

the choice that I think many agencies in our region have made in

the past and will make in the future.

Mr. GASTELUM. If I can expand on that. I think the bill approaches the large issues in a way that is very helpful to cities by

providing clarity and certainty in the Delta on the management of

environmental issues so we know that we are going to be able to

get water of high quality on a predictable basis. That sends the

right signal to cities at the retail end.

Now, if Metropolitan Water District is not going to have enough

water or, if indeed, it would help Metropolitan to be able to provide

the needed water supply, we are going to have the clarity with this

legislation of what our supplies are. And by providing competitive

grants, the most efficient projects are going to have an opportunity

to receive the funding that Joe just talked about.

All together this weaves, I think, a comprehensive program.

Clarity, the ability to get money for the most efficient projects, and

people understanding that there is a common cause here and a

common program. If you leave it to individual cities to try and figure it out on their own, they don’t have the resources.

25

They need to know from their regional governments like Metropolitan, the state, and the Federal Government they were going to

take care of their needs and if they have additional needs that we

can provide funding mechanisms for them to do the local projects.

I’m not just talking about hardware. Conservation. We’ve had tremendous success here with conservation programs working through

cities.

Mr. KOFFROTH. Also, I just wanted to address that I don’t think

that the need for this bill or the thought of this bill comes necessarily from any errors or lack of effort within the area. I think

from all standpoints we have the best workers delivering great

water in a reliable fashion.

I think the need for this bill is more about dealing with what

we’ve been dealt from nature in the water that is available through

Northern California, through the Colorado River, and being able to

develop new methods and means to be able to provide a reliable

source of water to the residents here. I think that is what we are

here for today.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Solis.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILDA SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this important

meeting here and an opportunity to hear the panelists talk about

their ideas regarding this very important issue.

My concerns really deal more with water quality and what we

can do to try to continue the cleanup effort in our basin. I represent, obviously, an area that has had a history of polluted water

now. There are some serious concerns there with respect to how

cleanup is done and how smaller purveyors are able to compete for

these grants technically and be able to get into the pool or in line

to be able to receive funding.

While the need may not always require the commitment of giving

funds, I wonder how we can provide that everyone gets that equal

treatment so that small communities, and one that comes to mind

that I used to represent in the Senate was the area of the city of

La Puente where they had to close some wells and they had to

transport water in.

They were then allowing for that cost to be spread over the consumers. That was of great concern. I know there’s been some remedies there. I would hope there is a better way of addressing these

issues as they come up that we can do some better planning and

help out some of these smaller communities such as La Puente and

areas in El Monte and others that are trying to deal with this

issue.

As the science becomes more prominent with respect to the particular kinds of chemicals or additives that we are finding in the

water, I would hope that we could have more opportunity for research done as well so that we can prevent the transport of those

contaminants down the plume which has always been an area of

concern for me.

26

Again, keeping in mind that respecting the natural watershed

and the way that we go about conserving waters are equally very

important to communities of interest that are now finding that,

yes, water is a very valued resource.

But how do we also keep the integrity of the process of transporting that water in areas where it is needed but also without disrupting the local habitat that is equally very important. So if anyone could comment on that, I would appreciate it.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Solis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Thank you Chairman Calvert for scheduling this important series of hearings. I

would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their time and expertise

on this issue.

The future of California water is uncertain. We need to answer several questions

about the federal government’s role in water resources development and management.

To do this, we must look at the entire picture. Decisions about the future of U.S.

water resources policy are inextricably linked to the past. Nearly a century of

project development has created a complex web of federal and state laws and regulations, contractual obligations, and economies based on existing water resources infrastructure. The time to understand this situation and start answering questions

is now.

Again, I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing your understanding of

the past and future of water security in southern California.

Mr. GASTELUM. I would first like to comment. In your area there

is a water district, Upper San Gabriel Municipal Water District.

They are one of our member agencies. I was in a meeting several

days ago where the general manager was describing their thought

process in dealing with the issues you identified.

EPA is not well equipped to come in in a speedy fashion to address these issues. They are an enforcement agency. They don’t

necessarily have a lot of money available to them. A great deal of

study is required before they can justify going ahead.

The local water district decided to dip into their reserves, and I

commend them for this, to go ahead and start the cleanup effort.

Not everybody out there has a reserve so to the extent that you can

provide funding for these local water districts to get the work

going.

Now, obviously they have to work in conjunction with EPA but

the missing element has been money. You can go back afterwards

and sort out who is responsible and make them pay but you don’t

make the situation worse by just sitting there and doing nothing

so to the extent that you can address local funds to do these kinds

of cleanup projects.

Joe is really talking about it on a basin-wide basis but it’s the

same principle. You do solve the problem. You provide more water

for the long term. It’s clearly something that needs to be addressed

in this context.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. I would add to that that, as Ron said, we are

attempting to deal with it on a basin-wide basis but, in fact, if you

look at the Santa Ana watershed and our 5 million people, the

truth is there are many communities of interest and each area has

had to band together. One of the most positive things for us has

been the fact that with money available from Proposition 13, that

27

has made people believe that banding together might actually do

some good.

One of the hardest things for agencies to do, particularly where

they had fought for years about something as crucial and water, is

come together and say, ‘‘We will cooperate.’’ Before I came to SAWPA I was the manager of a retail water

agency. We guarded our water rights jealously. We were absolutely

committed to maintaining the lowest price possible, and we were

committed to maintaining very high quality water.

But sometimes that didn’t lead us to have incentives to look long

range and that is what this legislation does. It helps people say,

‘‘Oh, there is money available for this if I’m willing to extend my

view and look long range. I think maybe I’ll do that. Maybe I can

cooperate with my neighbor if cooperation with my neighbor means

that there is more money available.’’ I think that is an important

role that you can play.

Mr. CALVERT. I want to point out in the legislation itself, and I

know that if, in fact, this legislation passes and hopefully signed

into law— Ms. NAPOLITANO. When it passes.

Mr. CALVERT. When it passes. Thank you for correcting me there.

This legislation addresses that. Grants for small rural economically

disadvantaged communities, Indian tribes, to improve the health

and safety of all communities. The intent, of course, is to work this

governance process where, as you mentioned, Mr. Koffroth, all

stakeholders would be represented.

We have a year working with the state legislature and the governor to put together a fair process in which communities and all

stakeholders feel is a fair process in which people believe that they

have an opportunity to go after funds that would help their communities.

One thing that I know is a concern to all of us is that in the past

we tend to go after projects for each individual area with different

success levels. This will give a process in which, I think, everyone

will feel comfortable with and the money and the assets will be

there to fund these projects in a more orderly fashion with the safeguards necessary for the environment and to assure that planning

agencies are able to move forward to plan for adequate water and

for the future of California.

If there are no other questions for this panel, I want to thank

you, all three of you, for coming out today and testifying and listening to our questions and answering them very well. Thank you very

much.

We are going to take a 10-minute break between the next panel

and we’ll start up again about 11:10. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m. off the record.)

Mr. CALVERT. Thank this panel. I want to explain again the 5-

minute rule in case you weren’t here when I explained it to the

first panel.

We have a 5-minute rule for each of you on your testimony. The

green light indicates your time is going. The yellow light indicates

you have 1 minute left. The red light indicates that the time has

expired. Please try to stay within that time requirement so we

have enough time for questions and answers.

28

With that, Mr. Pisano, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF MARK PISANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Mr. PISANO. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, and other Members

of Congress for holding this hearing on an issue as important as

the area of water supply and also our water quality in the south

land.

Let me note that my organization is the Council of Government

and the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Southern California. We cover six counties, all the cites. We currently have 17

million people and 6 million jobs in this region.

I will paraphrase from my testimony to enable me to stay within

the time frame and cover the pertinent issues that the Committee

is now looking at.

Let me begin by noting that my organization working with its

members develops the long-range growth forecast in the growth

management plan for Southern California. I’m going to refer you

to the table at the end of my testimony where we note what the

population and employment forecast is.

Looking out to the year 2025 we see that we will grow to

22,600,000 people and to 10 million jobs, representing a 40 percent

increase in population and a 43 percent increase in employment.

The fundamental question of concern to our council is planning

and managing this growth. We are concerned about the distribution of growth and how we get all the cities and counties to coordinate their plans for this growth so that Southern California’s future is shaped by the best vision for our quality of life into our new

century.

These concerns require us to link growth with infrastructure

needs accomplish this growth. As we grow, we need the water supply, energy, transportation and environmental mitigation systems

to work cost-effectively to support new residential and business demand.

I’ll limit my comments today to water. Let me note in our comprehensive plan and guide we present a water supply vision for

Southern California. This vision includes a projected need for 5.79

million acre-feet of water in 2015. We’ve also projected water supplies for this same time frame. Assuming we reach our supply

goals, we expect to have a water shortage in dry weather periods.

Shortfalls of this kind demand that cities and water agencies work

closely together to maximize our resources and minimize waste.

It also means adopting practices not only for conservation but for

use of water from other sectors. Such practices take us directly to

the issue of water quality. The resolution of the water supply issue

in Southern California (and the state of California as well) is going

to rest on our capacity to combine water quality and water quantity, flood control, and other multi-purpose uses in an integrated

strategy.

Probably the most difficult water issue that we face in Southern

California is having a fragmented institutional fabric that limits

the development of flexible, comprehensive and creative multi-purpose solutions. An example of this difficulty is the administration

of the total maximum daily load program by the EPA. Their

29

regulatory and administrative approach interferes with and ultimately prevents the use of strategies that actually improve water

quality and produce better flood control and more water supply.

The Committee needs to know that the Federal Government has

established a framework for integrated problem solving. Unfortunately this framework has not been used to help us coordinate the

quantity/quality relationships. One of those is entitled the Section

208 Area-wide Waste Water Management Program. It was set up

in the 1972 clean water act.

Section 208 contemplates a basin by basin process within our region by which water quality and quantity can be managed. I urge

the Committee to review the provisions of this part of the Clean

Water Act that enables us to manage our surface and ground waters and manage our storm water. Section 208 can move us beyond

regulatory actions and into much needed comprehensive resource

management actions. Currently we are the 208 agency in our region but have been unable to implement any of its potential because of lack of resources.

Let me just conclude with the observation and the experiences

that we are seeing with many of our partners. SAWPA is pointing

out and demonstrating how recycling in the management of waste

water and storm water can be used for water supply in addition to

flood control and quality. We need to do that in all of our basins.

Furthermore, we need to find the funding needed for these kind of

initiatives.

Let me just conclude by noting when we take multiple benefits

from quantity, quality, and flood control and we integrate them, we

will be better able to address the cost benefit results from combining multiple objectives. Our challenge is to integrate these as

we develop policies and programs. We look forward to working with

the Congressional Committee to get passage of legislation that

helps us meet the growth challenge successfully .

The resources provided in the bill gives us a start for a framework where we can bring these various issues together and truly

address our long-range needs. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pisano follows:]

Statement of Mark A. Pisano, Executive Director, Southern California

Association of Governments

Introduction

Good morning, my name is Mark Pisano, Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments.

The SCAG region is the largest metropolitan area in the country, encompassing

six counties, 184 cities, and 38,000 square miles. This region, which is the size of

Ohio, had approximately 16 million people in 2000.

The region now serves about 40% of its water demand from local supplies and imports about 60%, mainly from the State Water Project, the Los Angeles Aqueduct,

and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Potable water supplies are over 70% imported.

Actions taken all over the state—indeed, throughout the western states—affect the

water supplies potentially available for the SCAG region. As of 1995, the region’s

total annual water demand was about 10 million acre feet, compared with a statewide usage of about 80 million acre feet.

Factors that create challenges for Southern California’s water supply:

• Southern California’s unique economic strength. In GDP terms, the state of California has the 6th largest economy in the world; Southern California alone has

the 12th largest economy.

30

• Southern California’s tremendous growth. The region has already seen dramatic

growth; twenty-six of the region’s cities more than doubled in population between 1980 and 1999. This trend is projected to continue. The region will grow

by about 40% in both population and employment by 2025, adding two cities the

size of Chicago for a total population nearing 23 million. During the same period, trade volumes through the region’s ports are expected to nearly triple, up

to a total goods value of more than $660 billion. [See Table 1 attached to testimony.]

• The SCAG region’s unique demographic diversity, which means that water resources and related services must be assured in an equitable manner for a variety of different ethnic, socio-economic, and age groups.

• The concentration of growth, especially residential development, in the outlying

areas of the SCAG region, which creates new demands for local water supply

infrastructure. At the same time, the SCAG region is nearing build-out in terms

of privately owned, developable land.

• The state’s uncertain future with regard to energy cost and supply. Water resources are both a source of energy supply, through hydroelectric generation,

and a source of energy demand for pumping, transport, and delivery, as well

as for wastewater management.

• The state’s uncertain future with respect to climate. Southern California is by

nature an arid region with unpredictable rainfall. Drought years, whether local

or statewide, likewise cannot be predicted. Despite the dry climate, single storm

events can be so severe that the region has responded to flood concerns by channelizing many natural waterways to speed runoff. However, in many areas

these steps have served to minimize infiltration of storm water back into

groundwater supplies.

• The possibility of global warming adds to the climate uncertainty, and could further diminish rainfall even in wetter states like Washington and Oregon, whose

water in turn provides energy to California.

• Southern California’s history of intense agricultural and industrial development,

combined with its extensive coastal exposure, means that groundwater resources

are frequently degraded, requiring treatment before they can be used.

• The region’s unique concentration of biodiversity, with 70% of the state’s listed

threatened or endangered species in Southern California. Southern California is

one of the most imperiled bio-regions in the world, making our decisions about

water resources even more critical to the region’s environmental sustainability.

• The fragmented nature of governmental responsibility for water resources and

water quality in the region and in the state. This makes planning difficult and

underlines the critical importance of communication, of multi-stakeholder efforts, and of multi-purpose solutions to the region’s water supply and water

quality problems.

Actions taken in the region to improve water supply, quality, and reliability:

• Regular water demand forecasting. The service area of the Metropolitan Water

District of Los Angeles covers most of the SCAG region. Several smaller agencies provide water to other portions of the region’s six counties. These water

suppliers model population growth, together with conservation measures, anticipated climate conditions, and price, among other factors, to project water demand and identify possible supply shortfalls. SCAG has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Water District to provide projections of population, employment, and housing growth that are a cornerstone of water supply

forecasts.

• Dry-weather shortfalls have been projected. Working closely with the Metropolitan Water District, SCAG has produced a long-range water resources plan as

part of a regional comprehensive plan. This plan projected water supply shortfalls in dry years, as summarized in the attached charts. Several strategies were

identified in that plan to address these shortfalls, and these strategies are being

implemented through SCAG’s cooperative relationships with the region’s water

agencies.

• SCAG’s role in regional project review and planning. SCAG uses its formal

intergovernmental review authority to review water infrastructure projects for

consistency with anticipated regional growth patterns. Through programs such

as the regional Growth Visioning initiative and related efforts, SCAG strives to

integrate water planning with growth planning.

• Adoption of best management practices. Metropolitan Water District has adopted sixteen practices aimed at water conservation, including such measures as

water audits, new and retrofit plumbing standards, landscape water conservation requirements, conservation incentives, and others.

31

• Conservation of stormwater runoff. Several parts of the SCAG region have been

able to take advantage of spreading basins and gravel pits to allow artificial recharge of underground aquifers. For example, Orange County Water District’s

Water Factory 21 produces 15 million gallons a day of blended reclaimed water

which is recharged into aquifers to serve as a barrier against seawater infiltration.

• Integrated Resources Planning by MWD. This effort by MWD was undertaken

with the goals of providing long-term water supply reliability while balancing

investments between local and imported sources and protecting the financial security of MWD and its member agencies.

• Water reclamation. Reclaimed water supplies are primarily useful for groundwater recharge, irrigation of greenbelts and golf courses, and industrial purposes.

• Conjunctive use of groundwater resources. These efforts allow storage of water

in underground aquifers through stormwater infiltration and spreading of imported surface water during wet years or rainy seasons. Water can be pumped

out of these reserves during dry periods to meet peak water demands.

• New storage facilities. Metropolitan Water District’s new Diamond Valley Reservoir provides 800,000 million acre feet of new storage for Southern California,

and is also producing much-needed electricity.

• Groundwater recovery. Degraded groundwater supplies are being recovered and

treated, where cost-effective.

• Numerous private initiatives in watershed planning, conservancies, and water

conservation. Non-governmental organizations throughout the region are showing initiative in conserving land, developing runoff models, demonstrating innovative water conservation techniques, and convening stakeholder groups to overcome some of the institutional barriers to integrated management of our region’s water resources. These efforts should be coordinated and encouraged.

What additional assistance is needed to improve Southern California’s water security?

• Approve continued funding for Cal Fed. This effort has been critically important

in bringing together the parties with an interest in an equitable apportionment

of the state’s water supplies. Too much valuable work has gone into this effort,

and the economic and environmental stakes are too high, to even consider withdrawing federal support now.

• Facilitate interdisciplinary planning. The issues of supply and quality and reliability are so tightly interrelated it is impossible to act in one area without significantly affecting another area. We know, for example, that environmental

regulation in one area of water quality can undermine quality initiatives in another area. It is not unusual to find different efforts for a better quality of life

working at cross-purposes.

• Support the use of cost-benefit considerations. Adding insult to injury, often narrowly defined efforts waste money we can ill-afford to waste. If we’re going to

be good public stewards we need to encourage approaches that leverage our resources much more wisely...not waste them without concern for comprehensive

cost-benefit considerations.

• Support stakeholder processes. We believe that the use of more integrated, comprehensive approaches to our water challenge here require an inclusive stakeholder framework. This framework will ensure that the complexities of environmental improvement are more fully understood and prioritized, that the leaders

and institutions needed to solve these problems are involved enough to ‘‘own’’

these problems, and that efforts to raise resources will be validated by credible

cost-benefit assessments and supported by greater public consensus.

• Make use of existing authorities. The Clean Water Act was written with these

approaches in mind. I refer you to Section 208 and its call for ‘‘areawide’’ approaches to improving water quality. We now refer to these stakeholder-driven

efforts as watershed management planning. Call them what we may, these inclusive approaches to negotiated rule-making and problem-solving continue to

be essential, especially when some parts of our community rely only on the hand

of heavy regulation and confrontation. SCAG has been given Section 208 authority for our region and stands ready to implement that authority in the service

of inclusive regional planning. SCAG has not kept the Section 208 planning

process current largely because of a lack of funding sources.

• Concluding points. And as we all know in southern California, higher water

quality creates more water. Higher quality in our imported water or our local

water allows more reuse and more cost-effective reclamation. And as these efforts combine with ever-greater conservation, we will have sufficient water

32

supplies to support the growth that’s coming. That will be a great achievement

in this desert we know as southern California.

• But achieving this water independence, drought-proofing our communities, will

require a new framework for problem solving. We ask you to be ready to help

support this kind of stakeholder framework, to get the resources of EPA aligned

with these local watershed initiatives and to emphasize the need for integrated,

consensus-driven water improvements. SCAG and the region’s water agencies

have the cooperative relationships necessary to respond effectively to anticipated

shortfalls and to keep water supply from becoming the next ‘‘energy crisis.’’

• We will bring cooperative regional initiatives to your attention as they mature,

both in the form of reports and future testimony. Thank you for your interest

in our challenges and your willingness to be partners with us as better stewards

of nature’s bounty.

[Attachments to Mr. Pisano’s statement follow:]

33

34

35

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ATWATER, CEO AND GENERAL

MANAGER, INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY

Mr. ATWATER. Thank you, Chairman Ken Calvert, Hilda Solis,

Grace Napolitano. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. My name, for the record, is Richard Atwater. I’m the General

Manager at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a member agency

of SAWPA, and also a member agency of the Metropolitan Water

District.

Mr. CALVERT. Move your mike a little closer.

Mr. ATWATER. Let me just be brief. I have a written testimony

but let me highlight a few items.

First, like the previous panel, I want to thank the Chairman for

introducing this legislation, H.R. 1985. We definitely support and

want to work with you as you go forward with the legislation. I

think it’s a real opportunity for not only Southern California but

statewide to address some of our long-term water problems.

First and foremost, in our area of San Bernardino County we

overly the Chino Groundwater Basin, one of the larger groundwater basins in Southern California. As highlighted in Mr.

Grindstaff’s testimony, the opportunity to recycle water and implement the conservation best management practices, groundwater

cleanup, and store surplus water from the Colorado River and

Northern California so that we can utilize that supply in a drought.

It will be a very cost effective way to address those issues.

The previous panel talked about some of the local groundwater

contamination problems in our area because of historic agriculture,

dairies, orange groves, vineyards, the result is we do have elevated

nitrates and higher salinity.

In fact, in Congressman Calvert’s area, I know he’s well aware

of it, the Jurupa Community Services District is facing an imminent problem where their local wells will be exceeding the drinking

water standards for nitrates and they don’t have an alternative

supply readily available to them since they are not connected to the

imported water system (MWD).

That sort of problem highlights the need from the Federal Government’s perspective the new EPA proposed arsenic standard. The

city of Chino Hills has well water that is roughly five times proposed EPA standard which will be a very expensive issue for them

to treat and deal with that.

In that context, I wholeheartedly support the approach that Metropolitan has taken in their integrated water resources plan when

they adopted it in 1996, as Mr. Gastelum pointed out today in his

testimony, and that there is the need to have an integrated balanced approach to solving our water problems.

You look at the projections of growth in our area that Mr. Pisano

just presented for SCAG. You go forward 25, 40 years and you can

see that with this population growth and even if we had a full supply from the State Water Project and the Colorado River, we would

be short by upwards of million acre-feet.

Clearly, local water supply and local management of resources

and the infrastructure to do that is a critical issue facing Southern

California. Clearly we need to do both. We need to deal with the

issue statewide within Southern California it is, in my opinion,

very important that we look at the local resources.

36

Let me just highlight what has happened in the last year. Importing water to Southern California is very energy intensive. In

fact, water use in California uses about 15 percent of the total electric needs throughout the state.

One of the things we’ve done, like most water agencies in Southern California, we’ve changed our public message to be a water and

energy conservation message. The homeowner, if he saves water,

will also help us greatly conserve a large amount of energy. I think

that is something important message to the public.

When you ask about the Federal role, well, the Washington

State, as Members of Congress are well aware, we are totally interconnected with kilowatts. Certainly in the Colorado River Basin we

have seven states that are joined at the hip on water management

issues.

And so the Federal role both locally with EPA drinking water

standards, the Army Corps of Engineers on flood control improvements, we are working with NRCS on manure management clean

up and renewable energy projects with the dairies in the Chino

Valley.

Certainly with the Bureau of Reclamation we are all involved intensely with our activities in Southern California. One of the things

we would hope is that, for example, that this Committee would

hold hearings on the energy and water issues and how they we can

work together to help solve not only the energy crisis but better

manage our water supplies to reduce our need for high-priced electricity.

Secondly, let me also highlight for the Committee that the Southern California salinity management study that was jointly sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water

District, that issue of salt management is something that the Committee ought to look at more in depth.

Then, thirdly, the Bureau of Reclamation started in 1992 has

this regional study that they worked with all the local agencies on.

We participated, Metropolitan, SAWPA, and other agencies in

Southern California. That is the regional water recycling program.

I think that is another issue. How do we work together to more efficiently use our local supplies is one that I would encourage the

Committee to continue to look at. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thanks, gentlemen.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwater follows:]

Statement of Richard W. Atwater, General Manager, Inland Empire

Utilities Agency

I. Introduction

Thank you Mr. Chairman Ken Calvert and members of the Subcommittee for

Water and Power for the opportunity to testify today regarding the water problems

facing southern California. I am the General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities

Agency.

A. INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY

The Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a municipal water district under California

law, was formed in 1950 by a popular vote of its residents. The service area of the

Agency is entirely in San Bernardino County and has a current population of approximately 700,000. The Chino Basin also has 350,000 dairy cows, the most densely concentrated population of dairy cows in North America. Overall water use is

37

about 350,000 acre-feet annually, 70 percent of the supplies are from local sources

within the Santa Ana Watershed.

B. BACKGROUND AND INTERAGENCY RELATIONSHIPS

The Agency is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District and distributes about 65,000 acrefeet of imported water to the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho

Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga County Water District), and the Monte Vista

Water District. The Agency also provides wastewater treatment service ( four water

recycling plants that produce about 60 million gallons per day or 63,000 acre-feet

per year). Excess recycled water flows downstream into the Santa Ana River and

the Orange County Water District recharges that water into the Orange County

groundwater basin for drinking water.

The Agency is also a member of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

(SAWPA) and is an active member of the Santa Ana River Watershed Group and

the Chino Basin Watermaster. As a member agency of SAWPA, the Agency’s water

projects are closely coordinated with the SAWPA watershedwide planning and the

funding of priority projects through the Water Bond Prop. 13 grants.

II. Current Actions and Programs to Improve the Water Supply Reliability

The IEUA Urban Water Management Plan, adopted in December 2000 documents

the overall strategy for improving the water supply reliability in the Chino Basin

area.

• Water Conservation

• Water Recycling

• Local Groundwater Storage and Conjunctive Use

• Groundwater Cleanup

• Stormwater

• Renewable Energy and Organics Recycling

A. WATER CONSERVATION

IEUA and its retail utilities are committed to implementing the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California. IEUA is

an active member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC).

Currently, the Agency is expanding its conservation efforts to promote both water

and energy conservation programs to our customers. To fund these new conservation

initiatives, IEUA’s Board of Directors is increasing its water rate for imported water

by $ 1 per acre foot this week plus is earmarking general fund taxes to finance the

water and energy conservation programs for our customers.

B. WATER RECYCLING

IEUA owns and operates four water recycling plants that produce high quality

water that meets all state and federal requirements for non-potable landscape irrigation, industrial uses, and groundwater replenishment. The Agency recycles about

4,000 acre-feet annually and has a plan to increase that to approximately 70,000

acre-feet annually over the next decade. This is a ten year $125 million capital improvement program and would be accomplished in the following manner.

Build ‘‘purple’’ recycled water pipeline system to hookup existing large customers

(Inland Paper, golf courses, city parks, Reliant powerplant).

Blend recycled water with stormwater and imported water in a coordinated fashion with flood control district to ensure that all water is conserved and replenishes

the Chino Basin in an optimal manner (targeted goal is an additional recharge of

80,000 acre-feet per year).

Build in the future new smaller water recycling plants in the northern part of our

service area to provide recycled water to communities (Upland, Fontana, and Rancho Cucamonga) without the need to pump the water to them.

Coordinate with cities and developers on new urban development projects so that

dual ‘‘purple’’ piping is installed upfront to maximize non-potable uses with recycled

water.

C. LOCAL GROUNDWATER STORAGE AND CONJUNCTIVE USE

The upper watershed of the Santa Ana River is fortunate to have extensive

groundwater basins. This resource as described in Joe Grindstaff’s testimony is the

foundation for all of our water supply planning for the Santa Ana River Watershed

and for that matter, the whole coastal plain of southern California.

38

Within the Chino Basin area, the Watermaster is implementing an Optimum

Basin Management Plan to enhance the conjunctive use storage of the Chino Basin.

The Optimum Basin Management Program developed over the past two years by

the Chino Basin Watermaster would implement a comprehensive water resources

management strategy to drought proof the area and enhance the yield of the

groundwater basin. The Chino Basin Watermaster has developed a conjunctive use

program to store 500,000 acre-feet of imported water in wet years for drought year

withdrawal for both local, regional and statewide availability.

D. GROUNDWATER CLEANUP

Historically, Colorado River water (relatively high salinity) and agricultural practices have caused areas of the Chino Basin to have high salts that make the water

unfit for domestic uses. To correct this problem and to recover this poor quality

water, the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Plan recommends implementation of groundwater cleanup projects to pump and treat poor quality groundwater

to meet drinking water standards. Additionally, the desalination projects of the

lower Chino Basin area will protect and enhance the water quality of the Santa Ana

River and the downstream use by Orange County.

GROUNDWATER CLEANUP PROJECTS:

• Lower Chino area—- groundwater desalination 40 mgd (or approximately 45,000

AF per year), $250 million capital improvement program over 20 years.

• Jurupa Community Services District—- emergency need to build an ion exchange desalination project (about 4 million gallons per day facility) because

Riverside County residents have well water approaching drinking water standards for nitrates.

• City of Chino Hills—- local Chino Basin well water has elevated arsenic (average concentrations over five times the proposed EPA drinking water standard

of 10 ppb).

• Additional treatment of nitrates in groundwater in the communities of Chino,

Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Pomona, and Rancho Cucamonga is needed. Approximately six treatment plants are proposed that will pump and treat

about 25,000 acre-feet annually of nitrate contaminated groundwater for municipal drinking water supplies.

E. STORMWATER

A critical issue facing the coastal plain of southern California as the region continues to urbanize and hardscape our landscapes will be how to implement both

small scale and larger scale projects for stormwater capture to allow percolation into

our groundwater basins. IEUA in coordination with the Chino Basin Watermaster,

the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the Chino Basin Water Conservation District is developing an integrated recharge master plan to optimize the

capture of stormwater with replenishment of imported water from MWD and our

local recycled water to enhance the storage and recovery of water from the Chino

Basin.

IEUA is also sponsoring work, in part funded by the CALFED Bay–Delta Program, with the Rocky Mountain Institute on small scale, on-site (neighborhood development) stormwater management strategies to enhance percolation of rainfall to

minimize runoff, contamination of rainfall before it percolates, and costeffectively reduce flood control requirements.

F. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ORGANICS MANAGEMENT

The energy crisis reminds all of us working on the water problems facing California how incredibly dependent the imported water infrastructure of southern California is on cheap, low cost electricity to pump imported water into our region.

IEUA in response to the energy crisis and our need to be a steward of our environment has developed a Chino Basin Organics Management Strategy that will:

• Produce through anaerobic digestion enough methane gas for 50 megawatts of

clean, renewable electric energy by 2006;

• Cost effectively recycle organic wastes into fertilizer products in an environmentally safe manner that will reduce many thousands a year of long haul diesel truck trips per year;

• Reduce significantly air and water pollution from dairy cow manure; and

• Eliminate the need for electric power from the grid for operating the Chino

Basin desalination and water recycling plants.

39

Last Friday, June 15 IEUA with NWRI and the Southern California Alliance of

POTWs (SCAP) hosted a conference on the Chino Basin Organics Management

Strategy. We were very pleased with the broad based endorsement of the Strategy

and the strong support we have received to date from the State of California and

the Bush Administration for this initiative.

III. Future Issues and Need for Federal Assistance

Southern California does have enormous water problems when you consider the

following trends: • The current population is about 17 million and will likely double over the 50

years.

• The imported water infrastructure from MWD can optimistically only deliver 3.2

million acre-feet, assuming full State Water Project entitlement deliveries of approximately 2 million acre-feet and the

• Colorado River Aqueduct staying full constantly at 1.2 million acre-feet.

• Importing water to southern California requires a large amount of electrical energy, substantially more than the alternative local supplies (recycled water, capturing stormwater, and groundwater recovery of poor quality water);

• The region will be over one million acre-feet short in 2050 with a full supply

from the State Water Project and the Colorado River!

The issue for the region, as articulated in the MWD Integrated Water Resources

Plan adopted in January 1996, is to developed a balanced approach to multiple

sources of supplies with a clear priority to local resources management and emphasis on less energy intensive uses of water that protect water quality and the wildlife

habitats of the region.

How do we accomplish that? My suggestions are as follows:

Coordinated regional infrastructure planning for water supply, groundwater management, stormwater, wastewater reuse and recycling needs to be integrated on a

watershed scale. Regional leadership in the planning of flood control, wastewater

and water facilities is an opportunity that can save billions over the next 5 decades.

The Federal government should be a partner in this process. EPA, Army Corps, US

Bureau of Reclamation, the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service all

have significant activities within the region.

Excellent examples mufti-agency planning and coordination include:

• USBR and MWD co-funding of the Salinity Management Study.

• USBR Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study.

I would recommend that your Committee hold a hearing on these studies.

Santa Ana River Watershed Group and the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Watershed Council are institutional forums for coordinating between local, state and federal agencies focused on a geographic planning area (a river basin).

Closely linked to the regional planning for infrastructure is water quality. In the

future all water will be managed to maximize beneficial reuse and to avoid water

quality problems (whether contaminating a beach, a groundwater aquifer, or a community stream). Drinking water quality—less than 5 percent of all water use in

southern California is for in the house domestic uses (drinking, bathing, cooking).

We need to rethink why we import water 500 miles and use it only once and than

discharge into the ocean.

Listed below are key references of the water resources planning issues and opportunities facing southern California.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify. If we can any additional information on the current and future water problems facing California, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

References:

1. Urban Water Recycling Feasibility Assessment Guidebook, Richard Atwater,

Frank Dryden, and Virginia Grebbien, California Urban Water Agencies with assistance from Watereuse Association of California. September, 1998

(www.watereuse.org).

2. Salinity Manament Study, Final Report June 1999, Metropolitan Water District

of Southern California and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

3. Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California, A Guide to Conjunctive Use, Association of Ground Water Agencies, October 2000 (www.agwa.org)

4. Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Plan, Chino Basin Watermaster,

July, 2000 (www.cbwa.org).

5. IEUA Urban Water Management Plan, December 2000 (www.ieua.org).

6. IEUA Seven Point Emergency Action Plan, March 2001 (www.ieua.org).

7. Rates, Rights, and Resource Management: Metropolitan’s Strategic Planning

Process and Southern California’s Water Future, draft 2001, Richard Atwater and

William Bloomquist

40

8. Chino Basin Organics Management Strategy, IEUA, May 2001(www.ieau.org).

STATEMENT OF TOM LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER, COACHELLA

VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

Mr. LEVY. Thank you. I appreciate opportunity to be here today

and testify. I would like to start off by saying I support your leadership on this bill and I am looking forward to working with you

and the Committee to ensure that it is passed.

I would like to talk a little about the Colorado River and it is

probably the most important source of water for Southern California. We get about 5.2 to 5.3 million acre-feet a year from the

Colorado River. However, California is only entitled to 4.4 million

acre-feet in normal years.

We have been overusing the Colorado River water by about

800,000 acre-feet a year. This was allowed because the other lowerbasin states were not using all of their entitlement but they are

now effectively utilizing their entitlement so we would be reduced

except for interim surplus guidelines.

The guidelines allow California 15 years to reduce its use to 4.4

million acre-feet in normal years. These guidelines exist only because California Colorado River Agencies negotiated an agreement

in October 1999.

This agreement results in the preparation of 39 other agreements

that include the Quantification Settlement Agreement. State and

Federal environmental reviews are required before the agreements

can become effective.

Without the Quantification Settlement Agreement coastal Southern California would be cut by 750,000 acre-feet this year. This

would have significant economic impacts on California as it would

force Metropolitan to increase its demand from the State Water

Project and from water markets. This would impact the Central

Valley and the bay area. Significant water shortages would occur

in California.

The Quantification Settlement Agreement is at risk because of

delays in the restoration of the Salton Sea. The water transfers

from Imperial Irrigation District which are a critical component if

California is to reduce its Colorado River usage cannot and should

not fund the restoration of the Salton Sea.

The restoration of the Salton Sea is a national and statewide responsibility. Congressional help is needed to ensure that these

water transfers occur. Without this help the California economy

will be damaged and the problems of the Salton Sea will continue

to exist. The sea can be restored only through direct action and inaction is a decision not to save it.

Other Colorado River issues include a solution to the environmental issues of the Mexican Delta without negatively impacting

U.S. water users, salinity control programs to reduce the amount

of salt that the agencies that use Colorado River water would get,

and development and funding of a multi-species habitat conservation plan for the lower Colorado River that restores critical and endangered fish without impacting water power users.

We are a State Water Project contractor and receive our State

Water Project through an exchange with Metropolitan Water DisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
41

trict. As a state water contractor, we need an adequate supply of

safe and reliable water from the State Water Project.

The project is not meeting the commitments that we sign contracts for in the 1960’s and we need to have CALFED implemented

in a balanced manner. That is environmental restoration, additional storage now of reliable and efficient transportation facilities

across the Delta, and solutions that work if global warming occurs.

I believe your bill does this.

In terms of local initiatives, the failure of the State Water Project

to meet its commitments has forced local agencies to attempt to implement solutions. These include conjunctive use, conservation programs, recycling, brackish water desalting, and local storage programs.

Many of these strategies require the availability of water supplies for them to work. All of them are costly. Federal and state

funding both as grants and loans are needed to implement these

to the fullest.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:]

Statement of Tom Levy, General Manager–Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley

Water District, Coachella, California

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

My name is Tom Levy. I am general manager-chief engineer of the Coachella Valley Water District.

The Coachella Valley Water District provides a variety of water-related services

throughout a 1,000-square-mile service area in the southeastern California desert.

It is primarily located in that portion of Riverside County commonly referred to as

the greater Palm Springs area but it also provides domestic water service and sanitation in a portion of Imperial County along the Salton Sea and its boundaries extend into a small part of San Diego County.

The district was founded under the County Water District Act of the State of California in 1918. It acquired regional flood control responsibilities when it absorbed

the Coachella Valley Stormwater District in the late 1930s. In addition to storm

water protection, the district provides irrigation water from the Colorado River to

about 70,000 acres of farmland. It provides domestic water to nearly 83,000 homes

and businesses in the cities and communities of Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage,

Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Desert Shores,

Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach and surrounding areas. Wastewater collected from nearly 72,000 sanitation hookups flows to six reclamation plants where

most is converted to high quality water for reuse for golf course and greenbelt irrigation. The district also operates groundwater recharge facilities for much of

Coachella Valley.

While all of Southern California is a desert, with an average annual rainfall of

only about 12 inches on the coastal plain, Coachella Valley is especially arid with

only about 3 inches of precipitation annually. There are no major rivers flowing

through the area so most of Southern California’s water supply must be imported

from great distances—the eastern Sierra, Northern California and the Colorado

River. Coachella Valley Water District has contracted to receive water from both

Northern California and the Colorado River.

All domestic water the district delivers is pumped from a large groundwater

basin, also in a state of overdraft. It currently is replenished by natural flows of

snowmelt from surrounding mountains and by imported water from the Colorado

River through a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation and from the California

State Water Project.

42

SUPPLY, QUALITY & RELIABILITY CHALLENGES

Colorado River

Supply: California’s Colorado River supply is limited by the U.S. Supreme Court

and by the California Limitation Act to 4.4 million acre-feet per year. Accompanying

charts show the division of the river’s waters between the states and between agencies within California. Still, during the last 10 years the state has used more than

5 million acre-feet annually. The loss of 600,000 to 800,000 acre-feet of water annually to Southern California when California is limited by ‘‘normal’’ Colorado River

flows carries with it significant adverse economic impacts unless enough time is

granted to implement essential reductions in use and development of alternative

sources.

Now that Arizona has developed uses for its full entitlement, excess water for

California is a luxury of the past. Realizing this, and with prodding from the other

basin states and the Secretary of the Interior, California and its Colorado River

water purveyors have been working for several years on a plan to ultimately reduce

the state’s demand on the river to its basic entitlement. While negotiations continue

to resolve individual agency supply concerns, enough progress had been made by the

beginning of this year to earn the Secretary of the Interior’s concurrence on Interim

43

Supply Guidelines which allow the state 15 years to orderly reduce its demand on

the river to its basic entitlement. These guidelines are conditional on the Quantification Settlement Agreement being operational by Dec. 31, 2002. Arizona and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California have worked out an agreement where

that state would allow California surplus supplies in exchange for Metropolitan protecting Arizona from shortage impacts. Currently, progress is being made concerning environmental impact documents for the Quantification Settlement Agreement.

All seven Colorado River Basin states support implementation of the California

Plan to significantly reduce the state’s Colorado River consumption. Unless water

transfers pursuant to the Quantification Settlement Agreement begin in 2002 urban

Southern California could lose up to 750,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River

water, resulting in a water crisis with severe economic impacts. To meet this schedule, all environmental compliance actions must first be secured. This requires congressional action because the Fish and Wildlife Service is unable to grant necessary

permits before mitigation is authorized and funded.Without legislative action this

year, the Quantification Settlement Agreement, Colorado River surplus guidelines,

the seven state commitments and the ability of California to meet is obligations to

stay within its Colorado River allocation would all be negated.

The sought legislation would also authorize development of off-stream water management reservoirs near the All–American Canal to enhance off-stream storage capability, would enhance the ability of Mexico to make efficient use of its Colorado

River entitlement and would assist the development of a reliable water supply for

the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement.Quality: Historically, the Colorado River carries a heavy salt load—salt that leaches into the river naturally and

salt that is added as water diverted for irrigation is returned to the river for downstream uses. By the time Coachella Valley Water District receives Colorado River

water through the All–American Canal system, nearly a ton of salt is delivered with

each acre-foot of water. Coping with this salt is costly both in terms of money and

additional water consumed.

Salinity damage from Colorado River water in the United States typically range

between $500 million and $750 million per year according to Bureau of Reclamation

figures. High salinity levels make it difficult to grow fruits and winter vegetables

and salt destroys domestic water pipelines and fixtures. Studies show that salinity

damage could exceed $1.5 billion annually if future increases are not controlled. Several control projects have been completed since the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93–320, was adopted. Projects currently under development include the Paradox Valley, Grand Valley and Las Vegas Wash Units. Cost

of salinity control generally ranges from $20 to $100 per ton while a conservative

analysis of benefit is estimated to be $340 per ton.Traces of perchlorate, an industrial byproduct leaching into Lake Mead from the Las Vegas Valley area, have been

detected in Colorado River water entering the Coachella Valley.

And then, of course, there is the time bomb of the pile of uranium tailings sitting

near the river’s bank in Moab, Utah, with radioactive materials leaching into the

water daily.Reliability: From the standpoint of having excellent storage facilities in

Lakes Powell and Mead, the Colorado River has been extremely reliable to carry its

users through extended droughts because of 60 million acre-feet of on-river storage.

That reliability is at risk.

The threat to reliability comes from two sources, both caused by environmental

concerns. Before dams were placed on the river to store water for droughts and to

protect whole regions from devastating flooding the river flowed freely to the Gulf

of California. Today, there is a strong environmental movement to return a portion

of that historic flow to the gulf.

At the same time, the water conservation necessary to reduce California’s demand

on the river requires that the inflow to the Salton Sea be reduced. Unless the environmental consequences of the reduced inflow are addressed, California’s Quantification Settlement Agreement is threatened.The Salton Sea was created shortly

after the turn of the century when man accidentally diverted the entire flow of the

Colorado River into the Salton Sink for two years. It has been maintained since by

Colorado River water diverted to irrigate the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in

California and the Mexicali Valley in Mexico.

Today the sea is a primary resting place for migratory birds, including some endangered species.With a surface elevation nearly 220 feet below sea level, the only

way water leaves the Salton Sea is through evaporation which leaves the salts behind making today’s sea saltier than ocean water. There has been much work done

locally and in Washington toward saving the Salton Sea but this must remain a separate issue. Habitat such as wetlands adjacent to the sea can be created to address

44

the endangered species needs resulting from Colorado River water conservation and

transfer programs which will reduce inflow to the sea.

Attempts to increase flows to the Colorado River Delta in Mexico for environmental enhancement also threaten the reliability of the river’s water supply in the

United States. Environmentalists claim only a ‘‘small’’ amount of water, about

100,000 acre-feet is needed for habitat enhancement in the delta. This is one-third

of Nevada’s annual entitlement. Mexico currently receives at least 1.5 million acrefeet of Colorado River water annually plus any surplus flows. So far, all of it has

been diverted at Morales Dam in Mexico to irrigate farmland.

Any delta enhancement activity must be done creatively to assure that it doesn’t

contribute to shortages in California and to assure that it benefits delta habitat.

State Water Project

Quantity: The State Water Project was oversold and under-built. Even in a normal year, the State Department of Water Resources cannot meet commitments to

its contractors. In a dry year it is incapable of producing half of the water it promised. This year it provides 35 percent of its commitments. Solutions are needed to

move water through or around the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. The State of

California needs to honor its 1960s commitment to finish the project. This requires

an aggressive environmental restoration program coupled with storage and facilities

to move water around the delta.Quality: State Project water requires the removal

of many contaminants before it can be used for domestic purposes. Many of these

are picked up as the water flows through the maze of delta waterways on its way

to the beginning of the California Aqueduct.

Reliability: Without adequate storage and a cross-delta transfer facility, the State

Water Project helps meet Southern California’s water needs but, even in a normal

year, it can’t be called reliable. Global warming will reduce the reliability of the

State Water Project and destroy many of the environmental benefits that are to be

provided through CALFED. It needs to be considered in developing alternatives.Local agencies have been forced to develop programs to increase their reliability. This has shifted the responsibility from the State Water Project to the local

agencies and requires more state and federal funding to assist them.

Local water agencies have worked to improve its reliability through development

of innovative conjunctive use programs. For example, for more than 25 years the

Coachella Valley Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California have had an exchange agreement which improves water reliability to both.

45

Coachella Valley lies many miles from the end of the State Water Project but Metropolitan Water District’s Colorado River Aqueduct passes through the valley.

Coachella Valley exchanges its share of State Water Project water with Metropolitan for a like amount of Colorado River water which flows into percolation basins

for groundwater recharge. To make the system even more flexible, Coachella takes

water only during wet years when Metropolitan banks excess flows in the groundwater basin which Coachella draws upon during dry years when both state project

and Colorado River entitlements go to Metropolitan. As part of the Colorado River

Key Terms, both agencies are working on a 100,000 acre-foot wet year transfer that

will improve reliability and reduce costs.

Both state project and Colorado River water supplies are extended through these

types of conjunctive use programs.

Groundwater

Quantity: The amount of groundwater available to Southern California varies

with the individual basins and sub basins. I will limit my remarks to the groundwater basin of Coachella Valley which, fortunately, is among the best in Southern

California from the standpoint of large storage capacity.Still, it is in a state of overdraft and must be constantly replenished to provide stability and reduce the potential for ground subsidence and water quality problems.

The groundwater supply is large enough to sustain our water users through an

extended drought if necessary.Because rainfall is so scarce in Coachella Valley, professional water users (farmers and golf course managers) have recognized water as

a major cost of doing business and have become world leaders in the development

of micro-irrigation, computerized delivery systems and other water conservation

techniques now used in many arid areas.

Replenishment assessment fees are charged to major groundwater pumpers so

they pay their proportionate share of the cost of replacing extracted water. Nearly

all the water that we can reclaim from sewage is redistributed for golf course and

greenbelt irrigation, further reducing demands on the groundwater supply.Quality:

Generally, the quality of Coachella Valley’s groundwater is very good but planned

and proposed state and federal regulations can make that water very expensive for

the consumer, probably without improving its healthfulness. Desert area groundwater often contains naturally occurring constituents such as radon, arsenic and

chromium 6 at low levels but above levels proposed by some.

We believe it is vital to deliver healthful water to urban users and recognize the

necessity for the costs those users must bear for healthful water. However, we do

not believe it is appropriate to increase the costs of providing them with water without sound science to indicate that the additional money they are forced to spend will

make their drinking water more healthful. Coachella Valley Water District had contributed significantly to funding of scientific research in these areas and has actively

encouraged other agencies to do the same. Concurrently, we also are investing in

studies to determine cost-effective ways of removing constituents that may be found

to be harmful. The head of our water quality section is one of 16 people currently

sitting on an EPA subcommittee studying costs of arsenic removal.We all agree that

the current arsenic standard probably is too high but scientific studies to determine

an appropriate level are still incomplete. If the level is set at 10 parts per billion,

the annualized costs to Coachella Valley Water users will be about $2 million. Unfortunately, this will be assessed from a small amount of users in rural areas because our wells in large population centers are relatively arsenic-free.

Radon is a totally different story. Exposure to radon gas escaping from well water

is very small compared to total amounts in ambient air. Still, Coachella Valley

water users would be expected to pay as much as $8.3 million annually to meet requirements which have an almost non-existent health benefit.Fortunately, the federal EPA has stayed away from the chromium 6 debate but some California legislators at both the state and federal levels are pushing for standards without the benefit of science.

All current studies indicate that chromium 6 is not a carcinogen when ingested.

In fact, it is rapidly converted to chromium 3, an element important to body functions, when ingested or exposed to organic matter. Because domestic well water generally is protected from organic contamination, chromium 6—as a percentage of

total chromium—appears higher in groundwater than surface supplies. Very little

is known about removal of chromium 6 but preliminary numbers indicate the cost

per year in Coachella Valley could be in the $15 million range.Another concern facing all of California is the adverse effects of MTBE on the state’s ground and surface

water supplies. This has not yet become a problem in Coachella Valley but it is only

a matter of time.

46

Reliability: The short- to mid-term reliability of the Coachella Valley groundwater

basin is excellent and the district is currently in the public review stages of a valleywide water management plan which will extend its reliability for decades. The plan

requires implementation of a variety of conservation, conjunctive use, importation

and reclamation activities designed to reduce use without damaging the valley’s lifestyle or joint economic bases of tourism and agriculture.

It involves more use of Colorado River water to reduce the demand on the groundwater basin and increased availability of state project water for exchange to increase the availability of water for groundwater recharge. These issues are closely

tied to current negotiations concerning the Colorado River Quantification Settlement

Agreement.

MEASURES AND ASSISTANCE NEEDED

Colorado River

Probably the most important issue facing Southern California water users that requires federal participation is the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement. To go forward, we need congressional help in the form of $60 million for enhancement programs to protect endangered species habitat around the sea and direction to accept and implement a habitat conservation plan for Imperial Valley and

the Salton Sea. Restoration of the Salton Sea is an issue that Congress and the

California legislature need to address. However, the schedule for this important action is behind the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and

should not result in failure of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the resulting devastating economic impacts on California.

An urgent short-term need is for the removal of the uranium tailings from the

riverbank near Moab, Utah.An important long-term project is continued investment

in desalting research. There is nearly one ton of salt in every acre-foot of Colorado

River water delivered to Coachella Valley farms. The economic costs of such a salt

load delivered throughout Southern California is tremendous.

We also need assistance in resolving the Mexican Colorado River delta issue with

creative programs that reach environmental goals without the sacrifice of needed

water supplies in the United States.

State Water Project

Concerning state waters, we need the CALFED process to work. Both state and

federal officials must continue to work toward improving the water supply for most

of the state by fixing the delta to improve both quality and quantity of water for

the south.With the population of California growing, additional water supplies, including the benefits from storage, must be part of the solution.

Conservation

Grant and loan programs to implement conservation and reliability enhancement

programs—including water banking, conjunctive use, desalting brackish water and

recycling—would help Southern California get through future droughts. An example

of such is Coachella Valley’s Martinez Canyon Recharge program. Here, a groundwater recharge facility, similar to the one the district has operated for many years

for urban users, will be constructed in the agricultural portion of the valley to receive water through the Coachella Branch of the All–American Canal. When completed, it will help rebuild a declining groundwater basin during normal years along

the Colorado but, during years of shortage, farmers could ease up on their Colorado

River demands and rely, instead, on a freshly recharged groundwater basin.

Quality: We need to make sure water quality issues are based on good science

and, when good science determines that expenditures must be made beyond the

ability of users to pay, federal subsidies should be available to make up the difference instead of granting waivers to small service areas. If the water is found to

be unhealthful, it is unhealthful to small populations as well as large populations.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Thank you for traveling to California to hear our concerns about the state’s water

future. We look forward to working closely with you to address some of these recommendations and concerns.

If you desire additional information about Coachella Valley Water District or some

of the issues I have mentioned here we would welcome a visit to our web site:

www.cvwd.org

Of course, I am available to respond to any questions.

47

STATEMENT OF DARRYL MILLER, GENERAL MANAGER, WEST

BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT & CENTRAL BASIN

MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert, and Committee members for allowing me to be here today and primarily

testify regarding the value of local projects regarding our water

supply issues in Southern California.

My name is Darryl Miller. I’m General Manager for West Basin

Municipal Water District, and Central Basin Municipal Water District. Two separate districts share one staff. Both are actively involved in wholesaling of imported water. Also in supplying recycled

water in a very aggressive conservation program. We serve over 2.3

million people in total between both districts and it covers approximately 41 cities.

Regarding recycled water, when the West Basin recycle program

is completed we expect to be serving the capacity of approximately

70,000 acre-feet. Today we serve about 150,000 acre-feet of imported water so that would replace half of the imported water sales

with recycled water. That’s significant.

We also serve five qualities of recycled water depending upon the

needs of the end users whether it be irrigation or very technical industrial sites such as the refineries.

Central Basin has a similar goal. They have a fifty-mile system

of existing pipes in the ground serving recycled water. We still

need to expand that significantly and they are today serving 3,500

acre-feet. They plan to serve 10,500 acre-feet upon completion.

Recycled water has a very strong and clear economic benefit. It

helps drought-proof the area. It supplies reliability for industry

which keeps jobs in the area. It is also has very strong environmental benefits. Rather than discharging from the Hyperion Treatment Plant to the Santa Monica Bay area, we actually divert some

of that discharge and recycle the water for beneficial use. The more

of that we can do, then there will be less discharge into the ocean

and it discharges into the federally designated National Marine Estuary.

The Federal Government has been investing in those projects

and we appreciate that. Also you are very concerned with CALFED

obviously in Colorado. The more use of recycled water is of a direct

benefit and direct linkage to maintaining a reliable water supply

for Southern California both for CALFED and for the Colorado

River.

We have been supported by a number of Congressmen and Congresswomen that have really helped us out in the past such as in

Central Basin Congresswoman Napolitano, Congressman Horn,

Congressman Royce, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard. In West Basin

Congressman Harman—Congresswoman Harman. Excuse me. Congressman Waxman, Congressman Sherman, and Congresswoman

Millender-McDonald covers both areas and she’s been in a very key

leadership position.

Those are the attributes of the recycled water program. But despite the regional and Federal benefits, these programs are usually

looked at as so-called local projects rather than having a beneficial

regional asset and the responsibility of the local agencies.

48

A competitive grant program as proposed by you, Chairman Calvert, in the Western Water Enhancement Security Act, would play

a critical role in the ability for local agencies to continue to develop

projects creating new alternative water supplies through recycling,

desalination, and groundwater recovery.

The creation of such a program is absolutely necessary. We

strongly support it as part of the real solution for statewide water

supply problems. In the absence of such a project, the CALFED initiative will severely limit the availability of funds for local projects

and quickly provide a discouragement and an unlinking between

the benefits of local projects and how it relates to CALFED.

We strongly encourage the Subcommittee, the Congress to consider the values of local projects when you consider the CALFED

bills. Thank you very much on behalf of the directors of both Central Basin and West Basin for letting me testify to you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Statement of Darryl Miller, General Manager, West Basin Municipal Water

District, Central Basin Municipal Water District

My name is Darryl Miller, and I am the General Manager of both the Central

Basin Municipal Water District and the West Basin Municipal Water District. On

behalf of the Central Basin District and the West Basin District, I thank Chairman

Calvert and the Members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for this opportunity to testify about the water supply challenges facing Southern California and

the opportunities available to meet those challenges.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District and the West Basin Municipal Water

District are both public agencies that wholesale imported water to cities, mutual

water companies, investor-owned utilities and private companies in southern Los

Angeles County. Both Districts also supply their service areas with recycled water

for municipal, commercial and industrial use and both are aggressively involved in

water conservation efforts. The Central Basin District also supplies water used for

groundwater replenishment. Each of the two agencies has a five-member publicly

elected Board of Directors that sets policy and governs operations. However, the two

Districts share a common staff and headquarters in Carson, California.

The Central and West Basin Districts serve a combined area of over 400 square

miles in southern Los Angeles County. The population in this combined service area

is over 2.3 million people living in 41 cities and unincorporated areas of the County.

Each year, these two Districts deliver about 475,000 acre-feet of water in the combined service area.

The Central Basin and West Basin Districts are each unique in the make-up of

their service areas and the water supply challenges they face. While each is charged

with ensuring a safe, adequate and reliable supply of water to its customers, each

has its own specific obstacles to overcome in meeting that mission. Also, each District has initiated its own measures to improve its ability to meet the water supply

needs of its service area.

The West Basin Municipal Water District was formed in the mid–1940’s to preserve the limited underground water supplies in West Coast Groundwater Basin

and to secure supplemental water supplies. Today, about 80% of the 210,00 acre feet

of water used in the West Basin service area is imported water purchased by the

District from the Metropolitan Water District if Southern California. Additional supplies come from local groundwater sources and from the District’s aggressive water

recycling program. Through water recycling and water conservation, the West Basin

District is striving to significantly reduce the demand for imported water within its

service area.

The West Basin District is currently constructing additional components to the

largest water recycling system of its kind in the nation. Recycled water in the West

Basin District is domestic wastewater originating from the County of Los Angeles’

Hyperion Treatment Plant that is further purified through primary, secondary and

tertiary treatment. Recycled water in the West Basin is not used for drinking water

purposes. Instead, it is used for non-potable commercial, industrial and municipal

applications. When all of the component projects of the West Basin Water Recycling

Program are eventually completed, the program will have the capacity to recycle up

to 70,000 acre-feet of water per year. The two main components of the West Basin

49

Water Recycling Program are the West Basin Water Recycling Project, now complete and developing 22,000 acre feet of water per year, and the Harbor/South Bay

Water Recycling Project, which will add the capacity to develop another 48,000 acre

feet of new water supplies.

The West Basin is proud to report that all of the new water supplies developed

through its water recycling program are put to beneficial use. More than 140 facilities in our service area are currently using recycled water for non-potable applications. The West Basin also tailors its recycled water to meet the unique needs of

end users. Local oil refineries, which are a major user of our recycled water, have

specific water quality requirements that require additional treatment processes. The

West Basin also supplies recycled water for injection into seawater intrusion barriers along the coast. In order to meet the strict standards required for barrier

water more than 12 different treatment processes are utilized. While extra treatment means extra treatment costs, the end result is a dramatic reduction in the use

of imported water and a more reliable supply of both drinking water and non-potable water.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District was established in 1952 to help mitigate the overpumping of underground water resources in southeast Los Angeles

County. Local groundwater provided an inexpensive, but diminishing, source of

water for the area. The Central Basin District was formed to supplement groundwater supplies with imported water, which is purchased from the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California. Today, in addition to groundwater and imported water, the Central Basin District provides recycled water for irrigation, commercial applications and industrial processes.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District obtains recycled water from the San

Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant in Whittier and the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant in Cerritos. The Central Basin Water Recycling Program is comprised of two distribution systems, as well as three pumping stations and a reservoir. The two systems are interconnected by a 50 mile distribution system that

annually delivers about 4500 acre-feet of recycled water to more than 150 industrial,

commercial, landscape and irrigation sites throughout southeast Los Angeles County. The Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk and U.S. Gypsum’s paper mill in

South Gate are among the Central Basin’s largest recycled water partners.

We all know that water is a finite resource. The water we are drinking today and

using to water our lawns is the same water that dinosaurs drank thousands of years

ago. Nature regularly uses, cleans and reuses water, and has done so for millions

of years. Through water recycling programs, such as the West and Central Basin

Districts’, we are merely speeding up the natural process. However, for water recycling to play a role in the water supply problems facing California, the newly created water supply must be put to beneficial use in order to reduce the demand for

imported supplies, which originate from the environmentally sensitive Bay/Delta or

the federally controlled Colorado River.

Water recycling by the Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts

has strong and clear economic benefits for southern Los Angeles County. The reliability of recycled water helps to drought-proof the region by ensuring a supply of

water for non-potable purposes regardless of drought. This factor of reliability is

both an attraction for new businesses to locate in our area and an incentive for existing businesses, and jobs, to stay.

The water recycling programs of the Central and West Basin Districts also have

clear environmental benefits. Recycling water directly reduces the volume of effluent

discharged into receiving waters. This is particularly important in the West Basin,

where effluent form the Hyperion Treatment Plant would normally be discharged

into the Santa Monica Bay. Eventually, the West Basin Water Recycling Program

could reduce by 110 million gallons per day the amount of effluent discharged into

the Bay, which is a federally designated National Marine Estuary.

In addition to the local economic and environmental benefits of water recycling,

several established federal goals are also advanced. The federal government has already spent many millions of taxpayer dollars in the San Francisco/San Joaquin

Bay/Delta. This Subcommittee is currently considering legislation that will authorize billions more to be spent on addressing the water supply and water quality

issues that plague the Delta. Clearly, the issues in the Delta are of great federal

concern, and the Central and West Basin programs directly contribute to advancing

CALFED’s goals.

The federal government is also deeply interested in the State of California reducing its demand for water from the Colorado River. California annually exceeds its

allocation of Colorado River water by approximately 800,000 acre-feet. As Arizona,

Nevada and other States with which California shares Colorado River water continue to grow into their existing allocations, water recycling will continue to play

50

a significant role in California’s efforts to live within its own allocation. Also, a reduction in California’s demand for Colorado River water will directly aid the efforts

of the United States to meet its international treaty obligations with Mexico.

The advancement of federal goals accomplished through aggressive water recycling and conservation efforts has been a strong rationale for federal involvement

in the development of these types of projects. Many of these projects are capitalintensive, with large amounts of funding needed up-front in order to ensure completion and begin the delivery of new water supplies. Also, in today’s market, in order

to encourage end-users to switch to recycled water and commit to the development

of infrastructure needed to facilitate the delivery of this water, it is often imperative

to offer some financial incentive. A finite, short-term federal investment in the construction of well-planned water recycling projects can allow water districts to offer

recycled water at reduced prices and achieve the myriad of long-term benefits I have

mentioned.

The long-term local, regional and federal benefits of the water recycling and conservation efforts of the Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts are

well-known to our congressional representatives. In the Central Basin, Congresswoman Napolitano, Congressman Horn, Congressman Royce, and Congresswoman

Roybal–Allard have supported the Central Basin’s requests for federal funds to develop projects. In the West Basin, Congresswoman Harman, Congressman Waxman

and Congressman Sherman have all supported federal cost-sharing for water recycling and water conservation programs. Congresswoman Millender–McDonald represents portions of both Districts, and continues to be a leader in the Districts’ efforts to seek federal assistance to develop such projects.

Historically, the main obstacle to federal investments in water recycling projects

has been the lack of budgeting priority placed on such programs, and the lack of

a coherent federal policy addressing water infrastructure needs. The Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program, which provides a federal cost-share of 25% for the

planning, design and construction of specifically authorized water recycling projects

remains grossly underfunded. While the West Basin and Central Basin Municipal

Water Districts have benefitted from this program, the vast majority of projects authorized to receive federal cost-sharing under this program are still waiting to participate.

Other federal funding for the development of water recycling programs is available through the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. However, water recycling funds through these agencies is limited and not readily

available for new projects. Despite the regional and federal benefits I have mentioned, many in Congress refer to water recycling programs as so-called ‘‘local

projects’’ that should remain solely the responsibility of local agencies.

A competitive grant program such as the one proposed by Chairman Calvert in

the ‘‘Western Water Enhancement Security Act’’ would play a critical role in the

ability of local agencies to continue to develop projects creating new, alternative

water supplies through recycling, desalination and groundwater recovery. The Central Basin Municipal Water District and West Basin Municipal Water District

strongly believe that the creation of such a program is absolutely necessary as part

of any real solution to the statewide water supply problem. In the absence of such

a project grant program, the multi-billion dollar CALFED initiative will severely the

limit the availability of funds for projects, especially in Southern California, that

can quickly provide very quantifiable improvements in water supply.

The Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts are already planning new projects that will further enhance the region’s water supply. In addition

to its ongoing efforts to market recycled water to new users, the West Basin District

is embarking on the development of a comprehensive desalination program. One

component of this program will include cutting edge facilities to desalinate recycled

wastewater to extremely high purity levels for sensitive industrial applications. This

desalination project will also allow the West Basin District to further reduce the volume of potable water currently used for seawater intrusion barriers, which is currently a mix of 50% potable water and 50% recycled water. Another component of

the West Basin program will use state-of-the-art technology to demonstrate the economic feasibility of desalinating seawater to create new potable water supplies.

The Central Basin District is also moving forward with plans to increase the use

of recycled water within its service area. To accomplish this, the District will continue its efforts to market the benefits of recycled water to potential users. As new

users commit to recycled water, the Central Basin District will need to construct

additional links to its existing distribution system. As an example, the Montebello

Loop project, currently under development, will connect users in the City of

Montebello to the Central Basin’s water recycling distribution system. The Central

Basin is also developing a project that will connect the distinct water recycling sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
51

tems of the Central Basin and West Basin Districts to create a truly regional water

recycling treatment and distribution system throughout Los Angeles County.

Projects like these, and the benefits they offer, may not be feasible without some

measure of federal investment. I encourage the Subcommittee, and the Congress, to

consider the value of these projects when allocating existing resources and authorizing new programs, like CALFED, that may further limit the availability of federal

infrastructure investment funds in other areas. The Central Basin and West Basin

Municipal Water Districts applaud Chairman Calvert’s recognition of the importance of projects throughout the state that directly contribute to the goals of the

CALFED program. On behalf of the Boards of Directors of the Central Basin and

West Basin Districts, I thank you for this opportunity to address these issues before

the Subcommittee.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Miller, you bring up a good point

and I think this is a question for the entire panel. The issue has

been brought up by some and so I’ll bring it up here today and give

you an opportunity to address it.

There is a record of decision with the Bay Delta, the original

CALFED agreement. Our legislation goes beyond that obviously.

We have a competitive grant program. We bring back reclamation

loan program for the western states for ways in order to augment

financial assistance to build projects, through the governance process obviously, if it’s approved.

I obviously, and those who are sponsoring this bill, believe that

is important and I want to hear it from all of you. Can California

meet its future demand on water strictly with the existing

CALFED process as it is envisioned today with the record of decision without the additional leverage of this program that we have

put in place encouraging local water agencies to build groundwater

reclamation projects, conjunctive use, etc., etc., etc. Mr. Miller, you

can start with that first.

Mr. MILLER. I’ll answer very simply and clearly no. It’s going to

take a multi-source water supply program to manage the needs for

our demands in the future without a doubt. CALFED alone by

itself cannot take care of it.

Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate that.

Mr. ATWATER. I agree with that. We need additional funding in

order to implement the program the locals need in order to make

sure they got a reliable water supply.

Mr. CALVERT. And while you’re answering that question maybe

you can augment that. People need to realize that if California is

to meet its agreement to limit itself to 4.4 million acre-feet of water

in the time line that was envisioned by the previous secretary,

what does that mean if, in fact, we don’t have a program to encourage all of California, not just Southern California?

We’ll be doing hearings, by the way, in Central Valley and the

northern part of the state to build these projects. What does that

mean because we lose—what does that mean to water supply in

California losing that much water that we presently get out of the

river?

Mr. PISANO. If we lose—the only way California can continue to

meet its needs with less water from the Colorado River is to implement programs that recycle and conserve and store wet-year water

in groundwater basins for later use. We’ll also recover basins that

have been lost to contamination. We have to do all of those things

52

plus facilitate water transfers from agriculture to urban uses in

order to meet those goals.

Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate that.

Mr. Atwater.

Mr. ATWATER. Yes, I would agree with both Tom and Darryl’s

points. The only thing I would add is when you look at the history

of the CALFED Bay Delta program it is really focused on the Bay

Delta and was less focused on Southern California.

Not that it didn’t address it but it didn’t look at the needs and

what we need to do in Southern California at the level that your

bills address that need and also the need that I know all three

members of this hearing today clearly understand and that is that

within Southern California we have local community needs that

weren’t given that level of detailed attention in CALFED.

Mr. CALVERT. And, Mr. Pisano, before you answer that, I want

to point out, as we know, Southern California used 70 percent of

the water or more in the state and we have an obligation to utilize

that resource better than we have. That is the reason this legislation is drafted the way it is in order for us to do exactly that.

Mr. Pisano.

Mr. PISANO. Well, first of all, I want to agree with the first three

panelists on the basic conclusion on CALFED. I know without additional resources we can’t meet the commitments in the CALFED

record of decision.

Secondly, I want to emphasize and stress the comments that Mr.

Atwater made, and that is we need to look at the cost effectiveness

trade off of expenditure of dollars in Southern California for water

quality, water quantity, but control benefits and what that could

produce for the region and trade those resources on a cost effectiveness basis that we would spend against resources that the south

would contribute toward the Bay Delta.

And I’m not saying that the south shouldn’t pay for the Bay

Delta but let’s have a level playing field and let’s look at what the

cost benefit ratios are of expenditures within our own region relative to the basins to the north.

Then finally on the Colorado River, I just want to note that in

dry weather periods given the long-term growth that we’re forecasting, we have up to a 1.3 million acre-feet shortfall.

Well, that is a shortfall that we need to address and we have

multiple strategies of looking at that and that comes back to the

previous point that I made. Resources to help us carry out some of

our local regional strategies need to be put on the table with the

same funding priority and the same degree of emphasis that resources to address the similar kind of multi-use issue in the north.

There hasn’t been a level playing field as far as we’re concerned in

the south on that issue.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlemen.

Ms. Napolitano.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I’m hearing from

the first panel, as well as you, is that if we work together and are

able to take into consideration the needs of the cities, the industry

to conservation, recycling, storage, etc., etc., that we may be able

to not only deal with the situation where we might run into a cycle

53

of water shortage again, but secondly that if we work together, we

may be able to come up with a solution.

But has anybody done an assessment, qualitative or quantitative,

to assess what if we do all of the above.You’ve stated them. Deal

with the salinity issue, the storage, conservation, etc., etc.

How will that put us in a better position to be able to deal not

only with the growth of California but with the problems that we’ve

had in delivery of quality water. What do we gain or what do we

lose?

Add to that the fact that EPA is requiring sanitation districts to

do a fourth treatment of their recycled water which will cost billions of dollars to set up the treatment plant. At least, that’s my

impression.

Chairman Dreier, Chairman of Rules, was going to send a letter

to EPA asking them where that came from because nobody seemed

to know. Again, that is another imposition not only for California

but for the rest of the nation on how we deal with recycled water.

Add that to the mix and where do we stand and how can we working collectively toward the same goal with the leadership assistance do we package that and be able to do that.

Richard, you had in your statement—written testimony that we

should have a hearing on the studies that are being conducted for

salinity, and also encompass water recycling. Those are key for us

but how do we put it all together.

Mr. PISANO. Congresswoman, let me begin by stating at best

there is not an integrated system-wide study within Southern California as to how to do it for our entire region. There is in certain

watersheds and you have heard previous testimony on work that

has been done in the Santa Ana.

Let me just note some anecdotal information that we have acquired over the last 2 years. In LA City and LA County to handle

the chloride problem in the north part of our county alone we are

looking at $1.3 billion. That’s to handle one pollutant of a TMDL

program that EPA is administering and they—

Ms. NAPOLITANO. That’s to handle what, sir?

Mr. PISANO. The chloride. To solve the problem.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. All right.

Mr. PISANO. And, in fact, to achieve the standard required just

for one portion of our region, we are going to have to build probably

a brine line in the northern part of the county going out to the

ocean. That’s probably the most cost-effective way to deal with it.

This is piece by piece, function by function, type of problem solving and if we don’t integrate our southern needs as we have in the

Bay Delta to the credit of the Bay Delta, then the northern part

of our state has brought together an integrated multi-use strategy

for that resource. You have a commonality in the Bay that has focused that kind of work.

I might suggest they have not done watershed analysis on some

of the watersheds that drain into the Bay Delta in Northern California any more than we have in the south. That type of assessment is what we need. There are cost effective solutions with some

interesting tradeoffs that need to be put on the table so we can bargain for funding and be part of the resource allocation process.

54

That integrated and coordinated assessment throughout Southern California, as Mr. Atwater said, is really needed. Hearings

might be a way to further stimulate to bring our information together.

Mr. ATWATER. Let me just say that clearly in Southern California

we’ve done a lot of good planning but we haven’t done it in as comprehensive and with the new water quality issues facing us I do

think this Committee would serve our region well if we had hearings on the salinity management issue. It’s both a Colorado River

and Northern California issue. It’s a local sanitation district issue

like Mark just alluded to, this chloride issue. It’s a Santa Ana

River issue. It’s a Salton Sea issue so we need to address that.

I do think in both the Metropolitan Water District and its member agencies we are looking in the next year or two to update

Southern California-wide our water plant. It needs to integrate and

look at issues like storm water and needs to look at local watershed

issues and needs to look at flight control and the other infrastructure.

Certainly the drinking water quality issues that we’ve talked

about need to be incorporated because that is affecting all the communities throughout Southern California, as Congresswoman Solis

pointed out in San Gabriel Valley. Those are critical community

impacts.

Mr. LEVY. I think that we do a poor job of planning all of the

functions that need to be looked at and that are involved in all aspects of water. There are for the most part agencies which only

have very limited control.

My agency deals with the water from when it falls from the sky

until when it runs into the Salton Sea. We are unique in that way

but it is one that you have so many overlapping Federal and state

mandates all of which are counter productive and we need to have

some way of dealing with all of them in a unified manner.

Mr. MILLER. I agree with all that. We had a couple of other

things like that that relate to the same question. Metropolitan has

an integrated resources planning process that is an integrated approach and brings in many of the facets that you mentioned. However, it needs to bring in more. I think there can be a more concentrated IRP planning process that brings in the entire region of

Southern California.

Another observation would be that the value of reliable water

today is probably too cheap. The value is worth more than what we

are paying for today. If we are to do treatment, a fourth treatment,

the citizens are going to have to pay more money. Not a whole lot

more money but a little bit is going to bring a lot more funding resources to solve some of these problems.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, the expansion of the recycled water program has always been a funding issue. I am pretty sure that we

are going to have to deal with it. You’re right, we don’t pay enough.

We don’t value it enough so that we can really conserve. That is

something that I think is incumbent upon all the water agencies

to educate the users but recycle mostly is commercial immuny.

Mr. PISANO. Congresswoman, I just want—

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Very quickly, Mark.

55

Mr. PISANO. MWD does have a great innovative program but it

needs to be complemented with the area-wide waste water treatment activities of our sanitation districts. We need to pull that together. These are federally directed programs. There is a better

way to do it than what we are doing right now under the TMDL

program.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. May I ask, gentlemen, if you have

any additional information, please submit it so that we can consider it.

Mr. CALVERT. We will keep the record open for any additional information, certainly, submitted for the record. I appreciate that.

Ms. Solis.

Ms. SOLIS. Yes. Just a follow-up question for Mr. Pisano. You

opened with some statements regarding current regulations that

are in place now by EPA but haven’t been funded. Could you elaborate a little bit more about that?

Mr. PISANO. The approach that Congress initially intended to

control, storm water as well as other non-point source pollutions,

was called an area-wide management approach to waste water.

That program has not been active nor kept current. Rather, EPA

has taken a permit, an NPDS permit with maximum daily loads

associated or put on permits.

I argue you cannot manage what the waste stream through that

type of approach. That was not the intent of Congress. That is the

way the act has evolved and been managed over the last 20 years.

That is the program that I suggested to Congresswoman

Napolitano that we change the approach so we integrate water

quality and water supply and flood control. It is just as important

in an arid era to do that as it is in a wet weather environment.

We do not do that in Southern California.

Ms. SOLIS. Might that be something that our Committee could inquire about and perhaps ask EPA to provide us some information

on?

Mr. PISANO. Certainly. We can work together.

Ms. SOLIS. Right. I think one of the panelists talked about the

north and south issue and the fact that it is a constant tug of war

with resources and funding and it appears to me that the north has

been better at organizing themselves and that we ought to do a lot

more here to provide assistance in anyway we can to better coordinate and become the same potential force that we see our friends

in the north have because, indeed, our consumers are paid top dollar for the transportability of that water and they are expecting to

have clean water as well.

I think it is incumbent upon us to see that we try to support that

in any way we can. I know I’ll be very open to work with all of you

on that. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I have a couple of quick questions just to tie this

down. One is a comment on salinity. We plan to have a field hearing in Nevada in Las Vegas in July to talk about the Colorado

River and water quality in the west and certainly salinity which

is a big issue in Nevada. Probably later in the year we’ll probably

be in Phoenix for similar circumstances.

The issue of global warming came up. I used to be Chairman of

the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and have done probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
56

ably 20 hearings on the issue of global warming. Without getting

into the debate of whether it’s human incrementalism that is creating global warming or a natural condition, or whether it exists,

apparently, you know, there is a lot of science to state that global

warming, in fact, is changing the climate and a climate change is

taking place. There is a study that was written recently by some

very well-known scientists who I have worked with on the El Nino

situation several years ago and they were proven to be correct and

we prepared for that eventuality.

In that study it states that the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada

will shrink because more rain and less snowfall. The snowpack has

been, in effect, a regulator and, in effect, a storage mechanism in

order to release water to our reservoir capability in the state.

If, in fact, you believe that global warming is taking place, if you

believe that climate change is taking place, this is going to have

a tremendous impact on planning for California’s water future.

One, you’ll have significant increase in flood flow according to this

study. And you will have less supply based upon the existing storage capability in the State of California.

Without this type of legislation in order to help increase the supply, and to help modulate if, in fact, this does occur, what is going

to happen if, in fact, these predictions are true? I imagine Sacramento must be worried about that more than anybody. They

have 75-year flood protection. If, in fact, the stories are true, they

will have something to be concerned about. Any comment about the

study? Has anybody been able to read it? Great nighttime reading.

Mr. PISANO. Congressman, I have seen the study. Let me also

comment as a board member of the Resources for the Future, an

organization in Washington that is looking at natural resources in

the physical science area, our scientists, in fact, have looked at that

study and others.

There is indication that we need to change some of our hydrologic regime assessments of what the flows will be long term in our

rivers, as well as it potentially could affect snowpack much in the

same way that the hydrologic regime could be affected. And it becomes an important element in long-range planning.

The reason I was attracted to the study and into the work of

RFF is when you look out 10, 15, and 20 years, those co-efficients

become extremely important, not minor. Also, your population forecasts become extremely important and we generally do not give

that much attention to those policy parameters.

I urge the Committee to not only look at the short-term funding

which we support it and we’ll work with you, Congressman, but we

also need to look what are these long-term baseline assumptions

that are affecting our longer-term planning so we have the right

strategies in place.

There is enough uncertainty on global warming that I don’t think

we can conclusively say that it will change but we need to have

some what-if scenarios in our long-range planning should we see

it’s moving in that direction. Again, I’m urging Congress not to give

short sight as well as our own region short sight to this longerrange consideration.

Mr. CALVERT. Any other comments on that?

57

Mr. MILLER. Very quickly, your prognostication if the snowpack

decreases what happens is it’s pretty obvious that the Delta, as

well as the Colorado River quantities are going to decrease as far

as flow of water, which brings us back to the local water planning.

There are really only about five major sources of water for us if

you exclude the Colorado River and the Delta. That is an ocean desalination, recycling, conservation, water transfers of different

types and storage. It puts more of an emphasis on exactly what we

are talking about today, looking at that multi-faceted water resource approach locally.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Levy.

Mr. LEVY. I believe that when we look at solutions in CALFED

we need to consider the impacts of global warming because we

have a different—we’ll have a different regime assuming the predictions on what happens with global warming. We’ll have more

rain, less snow. That means you need the ability to store water. I

think if you look at the Colorado River, you have 60 million acrefeet of storage.

You look at the State Water Project and you have five or six million acre-feet. You cannot operate that system with limited storage

under a global warming scenario.

You are going to have a hard time meeting the standards in the

Delta if the ocean level raises because you won’t have water in the

reservoirs to be able to maintain the salinity interface. You have

a higher water level so salinity is going to come back further and

you have less water when you need it to push it out. We are going

to see dramatic changes there.

Mr. CALVERT. It certainly is an interesting dynamic to add to this

debate and we need to follow the science as this process moves

along. Any other comments before we excuse the panel?

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, do we agree with the panel that we

do have a problem with global warming?

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I’ve been studying that issue for many years

and I think whether or not you believe that there is climate change

or global warming based upon human activity or whether it’s a naturally occurring phenomenon on earth, nevertheless, we should follow the science. If you believe, in fact, it is happening, then it certainly adds a dynamic to this debate. It certainly adds more importance to the passage of this legislation.

So, with that, I’m going to also recognize some representatives

from Yvonne Brathwaite Burke’s office here, supervisor, Second

District of the County of Los Angeles. Ta’Shara Murray and Miriam Long Simmons are here and they brought a statement to be

submitted to the record. Without any objection, we will submit that

statement for the record. Are we going to have them read part of

it in the record? Okay.

To this panel I want to thank you very much for coming out this

afternoon and giving your testimony and answering questions.

Thank you very much.

58

STATEMENT OF TA’SHARA MURRAY, DEPUTY, WITH MIRIAM

LONG SIMMONS, SENIOR DEPUTY, ON BEHALF OF

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, COUNTY

SUPERVISOR OF THE SECOND DISTRICT, COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES

Ms. MURRAY. Good afternoon.

Mr. CALVERT. Good afternoon. You may begin.

Ms. MURRAY. Good day, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ta’Shara

Murray and I’m here today along with my colleague, Miriam Simmons, on behalf of Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Pull the mike up closer to you, Hon, please.

Ms. MURRAY. We are here today on behalf of Supervisor Yvonne

Brathwaite Burke, County Supervisor of the Second District, County of Los Angeles. We appreciate you coming to Southern California

today to listen to our concern for a safe and reliable water supply

for our state and region. We know that you share those concerns

and we commend you for your ongoing efforts to achieve those

goals.

Reliable water supply is of high importance in the Second District because business and industry don’t have reliable water and

many of our constituents don’t have jobs.

Representative Calvert, we commend you for introducing the

Western Water Enhancement Security Act, H.R. 1985, to authorize

a comprehensive program to enhance California’s environment, the

water supply and water quality, promote water use efficiency and

water transfers, and create a government to implement CALFED

and a competitive grants program.

We thank you for allowing us to be here today. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Yvonne Brathwaite Burke follows:]

Statement of Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Supervisor, Los Angeles County,

California

Good day, Mr. Chairman. I am Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, supervisor of the second district of the County of Los Angeles

I appreciate your coming to Southern California today to listen to our concern for

a safe and reliable water supply for our state and region. I know you share those

concerns, and I commend you for your ongoing efforts to achieve those goals.

My primary message today is to urge continued federal support of the CalFed

process that is key to California’s water supply dependability and tapwater quality.

The district that I have represented on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors since 1992 has a population of approximately 1.9 million people, and has a

high concentration of industry and minorities.

A reliable water supply is of high importance in my district, because if business

and industry don’t have reliable water, some of my constituents don’t have jobs.

And lower-income families also are less able than others to buy bottled water or

expensive home treatment systems, which many people perceive are superior to tapwater for water safety and aesthetics.

Indeed, as wealthier households are more likely to have bottled water delivered

to their homes and to install home-treatment equipment, water agencies are increasingly providing water to those who are least able to afford alternatives: children, elderly, people with compromised immune systems, and low income.

So, more than ever, it is incumbent on government to ensure reliable water and

high-quality water for the public welfare. The CalFed process is critical to that endeavor.

Representative Calvert , I commend you for introducing the Western Water Enhancement Security Act, H.R. 1985, to authorize a comprehensive program to enhance California’s environment, the water supply and water quality; promote wateruse efficiency and water transfers; and create a governance board to implement

CalFed and a competitive grants program.

59

I also am aware that California Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced Senate

Bill 976 with similar goals, and I recall that both you and Senator Feinstein held

a joint press conference at which you expressed your openness to bipartisan dialogue

and consensus solutions as your respective bills proceed. I salute you for your bipartisanship, which certainly is the key to legislative success.

As these bills proceed, may I suggest several principles that should be included

in the final legislation:

A governance mechanism that will assure a stable and balanced implementation

of the entire CalFed program, and which represents urban Southern California’s interests;

Funding for water quality projects-including those called ‘‘complementary actions’’

in the Record of Decision;

Funds for state and local supply reliability projects, including additional surface

and groundwater storage and improvements in through–Delta conveyance;

Funds for environmental restoration, specifically the Environmental Water Account and Environmental Restoration Program defined in the Record of Decision;

And provisions that require environmental restoration be accomplished in a way

that assures reliable supplies for recipients of water from the state and federal

projects.

Recently, the Bush Administration received deserved accolades for launching a

massive federal effort to protect and restore Florida’s Everglades.

Mr. Chairman, may I submit that California’s Bay–Delta, an area of more than

1,00 square miles, is the Everglades of the West—both a natural environmental

treasure and a water source for two-thirds of the state’s population.

We urge Congress to join you and Senator Feinstein in launching a Bay–Delta

restoration.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming out

this afternoon. We thank your supervisor. Thank you very much.

We are going to combine our last two panels into one so we will

take a very short break and then we’ll come back together here in

about five or 10 minutes. If that panel can organize up here at the

front, we’ll be back in just a couple of minutes.

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m. off the record until 12:10 a.m.]

Mr. CALVERT. Please take your seats and we’ll resume the Committee here very quickly.

Our next panel and last panel we kind of combined as we have

a few folks on the panel. We have Mr. John Stovall, General Counsel, Kern County Water Agency; Mr. Art Gallucci, City Manager,

City of Cerritos, Mr. Conner Everts, Executive Director, Southern

California Watershed Alliance; Mr. Christopher Davis, City of Norwalk, and Mr. Ron Linsky, Executive Director, National Water Research Institute, and, of course, Mr. Larry Libeu, Director of Legislative Affairs, Eastern Municipal Water District.

With that, why don’t we kind of go left to right. We’ll start with

you, Ron Linsky. Thanks for coming out this morning. I’ll try to follow your PowerPoint here.

STATEMENT OF RON LINSKY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL WATER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Mr. LINSKY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name is Ronald Linsky. I’m the Executive Director of the

National Water Research Institute located in Fountain Valley,

California.

I thought that a change of pace would be appropriate. You have

been looking this way for so long. If we turn the heads the other

way, you can go in the other direction for awhile and look east as

you are very familiar with that part of the geography.

60

The title of this hearing I find very unique because it aptly defines the problems that Southern California is facing which are basically to ensure a supply that is simultaneously available and sustainable for development, economic growth, and the environment.

The challenge that I view from the National Water Research Institute’s perspective is the ability to take advantage of existing

technologies, to address these critical issues. Remember however,

that we live in an arid urban environment. The picture on the wall

up there is a very, very, very telling image from NASA satellites.

It is very difficult to see a natural environment there in Southern

California.

In fact, what you are really seeing is a reflection of enormous

amounts of an artificial environment referred to as the urban watershed. This is an area that we have engaged a significant amount

of our effort in to try to come up with what is the definition or

characterization of an urban environment. It’s my opinion that the

most important issue facing Southern California is the prudent

management of the actual and potential supplies that we have

right in front of us.

You are familiar with Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. If you

look at the new image coming out this week from NASA, you will

notice that the red area and the blue areas are the amount of

paved surfaces in your second home back east that is growing at

about 10 to 12 percent per year.

Ms. Solis, you referred to the natural watersheds. We live in an

environment here that there is no such thing as a natural watershed. We live in an artificial watershed that we have very little

knowledge from a research perspective of how it operates. We don’t

understand the dynamics.

In California the Department of Finances, you heard earlier

today from various speakers, is expecting about 600,000 people a

year, new people in this state, for the next 20 years. That means

that there is a real conflict here because we are faced with a problem of trying to find new water.

The mission statement of the National Water Research Institute

is to create new sources of water through research and technology

and to protect the marine and aquatic environments.

From a water perspective, those 600,000 people a year refers to

a demand that we have to anticipate which is about 184 acre-feet

a day which is equivalent to 67,000 acre-feet per year of new water.

Not water in the snowpack. Not water in the ground water. Not

water in the surface water but new water. How do we create that?

Within Southern California it is interesting to note that on a

daily basis a billion gallons a day are pushed out into the Pacific

Ocean from treatment plants. That billion gallons a day is the

equivalent of 6,000 acre-feet a day or, at the end of a year, over

a million acre-feet a year of good quality, very high quality water

is moving out into the ocean.

That is interesting, too, because the value of that water is

wrapped up in the service it provides to the human population in

Southern California. That service is it serves as a carrier. It carries

waste material that we really don’t want.

The water itself is extraordinarily good water. It is plain and

simple, H2O. It hasn’t changed from its beginning. We have to start

61

looking at where are we going to find new sources of water. That

is the margin between the water supply that we have and the demand of the population.

We have projected that in Southern California between reuse, desalination, efficiencies, and conservation we have an opportunity to

find water that will supply that marginal need that we are looking

at.

One of the rather interesting projects in Southern California that

is attempting to do this is the Orange County groundwater replenishment system which will be a high tech advanced water treatment system that will take from the Orange County Sanitation

District eventually about 100,000 gallons—excuse me, 100 million

gallons a day.

It will reduce the ocean discharge. It’s a high tech system with

micro-filtration, RO, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection.

The project water will be used for seawater barrier and for groundwater recharge.

What it will provide the two million residents of Orange County

is a decreased dependence on imported waters, it will produce over

100,000 acre-feet of new water a year, and it will have an approximate energy savings of 125 million kilowatt hours a year by recycling that water.

If you take and compare the Colorado River Aqueduct system,

the delivery requirements of that water from the Colorado River is

about 2,000 kilowatt hours per acre-feet. The State Water Project

is about 3,260 kilowatt hours per acre-feet. The GWR system will

have a total of only 1,700 kilowatt hours per acre-foot that it delivers. The differential there is quite significant.

When we look at the challenge of this hearing, and that, of

course, is to look at the water security of Southern California, we

have to rely upon imagination, we have to rely upon creativity, and

we have to think out of the box, so to speak, when it comes to dealing with the challenges that we are faced with.

With that, since I just saw the red light just now, we’ll go on to

the next speaker, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlemen. If somebody could flip the

lights up a little bit. I know we are trying to save electricity here

today but we’ve got to see. I think Larry needs — you’ve got your

glasses on. Larry Libeu, you are recognized.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Linsky follows:]

Statement of Ronald B. Linsky, Executive Director, National Water

Research Institute

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Ronald B. Linsky and I am the Executive Director of the National

Water Research Institute (NWRI), located in Fountain Valley, California. I have attached a brief resume of my nearly 30 year professional career which includes research directorships at the University of Southern California and the University of

Hawaii, and service as the Chief Technical Advisor to the United National Development Programme stationed on the Caribbean island nation of Trinidad Tobago.

The title of this Field Hearing, Southern California Water Supply Opportunities

and Challenges, aptly defines the future in what is, in fact, a desert environment:

challenges and opportunities. The challenge to all Southern California water utilities is to ensure a supply that will sustain development, economic growth, and the

environment. The opportunities are to make use of existing technologies, anticipate

through research new or emerging technologies and to apply technologies to the

needs of the urban watershed, which is in fact nearly all of Southern California.

62

When viewing a satellite image of Southern California, you are immediately impressed with the extraordinary expanse of reflected light from the concrete surfaces

arising from the mountains to the sea. In this vast urban watershed, the seemingly

endless houses, concrete curbs and gutters, storm drains, streets, and freeways have

become the metaphors for the rivers, streams, valleys, and hills of yesterday.

In my opinion, the most important issue facing Southern California is the need

to provide a sustainable, high-quality supply of water to the expanding population

for all purposes. The California State Department of Finance has projected that the

population of California will increase at a conservative annual rate of over 600,000

persons a year for the next 20 years. From a water supply perspective (and if we

take a conservative approach) this means that over 60 million gallons a day of new

water must be created to satisfy all the needs associated with maintaining the population, (e.g., manufacturing, food production and processing, environmental, life support, and recreational). Southern California can expect to receive about 65 percent

of that population increase and, therefore, will need to find water to meet the demand for approximately 36 million gallons of new water per day.

Water resource managers literally know where all the waters are in California.

With considerable precision, they know the amount of snow pack available and,

therefore, its potential contribution to the overall water supply equation. They also

know with reasonable accuracy the amount of water banked in groundwater

aquifers throughout the state, as well as what level of dependability they can expect

from imported supplies. Yet, with all this knowledge, doubts continue to grow that

current supplies are inadequate and future supplies will be more limited and unreliable. The major question is, therefore, not whether the managers can satisfy the increasing demands forecasted for the next two decades, but where will new supplies

come from and will they sustain the current and projected populations and, at the

same time, provide for growth and economic development.

Within the Southern California coastal counties, more than a billion gallons of

water are released to ocean environment on a daily basis. Only 2 percent of that

volume was used to support the drinking water habits of the population. The remaining 98 percent was used to support everything else associated with the maintenance of the population. However, all that water was treated to drinking water

quality standards, which required considerable investments of capital resources.

Using water more than once is a critical strategy to assist overcome the water

needs of southern California as well as the rest of the nation, especially the arid

southwest and Florida. It is a strategy that should be given a higher priority and

taken seriously by the federal government because, in reality, there is no new water

on our horizon. I have stated many times that the only new water will have to come

from existing water supplies.

A prime example of addressing this major issue is the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System. The project will take highly treated wastewater from the Orange County Sanitation District, where currently it is discharged into the ocean,

and purify it through an advanced water treatment system that includes microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection. A portion of the product water

will be injected along the coast to create a hydraulic barrier to prevent seawater

intrusion into a large groundwater basin that provides water for over 2 million residents of Orange County, California. The remaining purified water will be pumped

to percolation ponds and naturally introduced into the groundwater basin. The purified water is nearly distilled in quality and will eventually blend into existing

groundwater supplies to be extracted over time for everyday domestic and commercial/industrial use.

The GWR project has many values and benefits. One of the most important to

Southern California, especially at this particular time, deals with the energy savings

potential of the project relative to imported water supplies.

In terms of energy savings, it takes approximately 2,000-kilowatt hours of electricity to move one acre foot (326,000 gallons) of water from the Colorado River to

Orange County. It takes even more energy—3,260kilowatt hours of electricity—to

bring one acre-foot of water from Northern California. It will take only

1,700kilowatt hours of electricity to produce an acre-foot of water from the GRW

project. Every gallon of water produced from the GWR system will be one less gallons of water that must be transported from the Bay Delta or Colorado River. This

alone is an extraordinary benefit, which has extraordinary value to the region.

The first phase of the project will produce 78,000 acre feet of new water and the

energy savings from that will be approximately 140 million kilowatt hours each

year, which is the enough energy to serve over 21,000 homes a year. At the completion of the project in 2005, the energy savings could increase to over 215 million

kilowatt hours each year. The project has enormous value to California and adjacent

states that provide power and water to this region.

63

By taking advantage of current technologies, this project will provide a reliable

supply of high-quality water for over 2 million people to enhance their water security, avoid excessive energy requirements, and ensure that future environmental

needs can be met.

The federal government needs to encourage projects like the GWR system. The

development of not only a research and development program, but a partnership

program that would provide incentives to incorporate water reclamation, reuse,

desalting and desalination as a component of integrated resource management

strategies must be a long-term priority goal of the House Committee on Resources

and its Subcommittee on Water and Power.

STATEMENT OF LARRY LIBEU, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE

AFFAIRS, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Mr. LIBEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for holding this timely oversight hearing with regard to

Southern California water security.

My name is Larry Libeu and I am the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Eastern Municipal Water District, EMWD. I want to

say from the onset that we support your efforts to achieve this

hardy goal through your legislation.EMWD is located in southwestern Riverside County. Our Service area is about 555 square

miles and we have a population of 440,000 people and we are growing.

Over the past 50 years our service area has transformed from an

agricultural base to predominately urban. Like a majority of Southern California water suppliers, we have to rely on imported water

supply. Today we import approximately 76 percent of our domestic

water supply demands and we are experiencing growth at a rate

faster than other portions of our region.

The challenge that we face today is an ever increasing demand

for water and a supply that is being governed by state and Federal

authorities. It is further being diminished by regulatory, environmental, and hydrological conditions. The reliability of imported

water supplies to Southern California, Mr. Chairman, is less than

ideal.

Aside from these challenges water agencies in California are now

faced with a new political challenge. State legislation requires

water supply agencies to provide certification of the capability to

supply water demands of new development. Water serves as the

foundation for economic development. California’s economy cannot

grow without water.

EMWD has responded to these challenges through a series of innovative programs to improve quantity, quality, and reliability of

our customer’s water supply. In conjunction with partners within

our service area, we are developing and implementing regional

groundwater management plans to optimize the use of local water

resources. EMWD is constructing its first desalter and is planning

two additional facilities to treat otherwise unusable brackish

groundwater.

We are working with local, regional, and state agencies to utilize

groundwater basins to store imported water. The conjunctive of

available ground water storage will reduce EMWD’s peak demand

on imported water supplies and improve reliability during periods

of drought.

64

We have fully implemented all the best management practices as

recommended by the State of California for water conservation. We

have through the Bureau of Reclamations Small Reclamation

Projects Act made major investments in the water recycling program. Today during peak demands, EMWD markets 100 percent of

its recycled water.

There are several areas where the water agencies of Southern

California will require assistance in achieving long-term water security. The capital investment required to optimize local resources

and implement regional conjunctive use programs will be a major

financial burden. Most importantly, the long-term water supply

planning for all of Southern California is contingent upon the completion of the CALFED process.

That process will determine the approaches, the programs, and

the projects we need for cost-effective water supply security in

Southern California. Long-term water supply planning cannot be

completed until the CALFED process is complete.

Mr. Chairman, I’ve indicated the challenges facing EMWD. The

CALFED process is critical to California’s water quality, supply, reliability solutions, and its economic future. The structure and detail

of how we want to govern such manners is a key component to our

future ability in Southern California to meet our customer’s needs.

Water quality projects must be a part of the program. Environmental regulation must be addressed. Funding mechanisms must

be in place to implement the programs which meet the goals and

objectives of the CALFED framework and the record of decision.

A competitive grant program to plan, design, and construct water

resource projects is a strong motivator to achieve such results. Our

path to assisting this challenge is to revitalize the Small Reclamations Project Act, Title II of your legislation. This program will provide agencies in Southern California as well as the rest of the west

an opportunity to implement essential projects. Water resources

management is not just a California crisis. It impacts all the west.

It is time to look the 21st Century in the eye and invest in the

west.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there are many crises facing the

west. Abundant water supply has been a critical issue for Southern

California. As each year passes, the need increases. Your legislation, H.R. 1985, recognizes the need for the establishment of a

CALFED program, creates an effective government mechanism, addresses the critical issues of water quality, and acknowledges the

need for environmental considerations, and provides the essential

funding.

EMWD’s board applauds your efforts and will do everything

within its powers and authority to assist in a successful enactment

of this critical legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlemen.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Libeu follows:]

Statement of Lawrence M. Libeu, on behalf of the Eastern Municipal Water

District, Perris, California

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I want to thank you, Chairman Calvert, for conducting this timely oversight hearing with regard to Southern California water security. My comments today are on

behalf of the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Southern California water

65

agencies face a challenge: search for new water supplies or better manage what we

have. EMWD recognizes the need to provide the necessary resources to manage, develop and sustain the reliability of California’s ever dwindling water supplies, at the

same time minimize the social and economic impacts to our customers. Let me say

from the onset EMWD supports your efforts to achieve these goals through your legislation.

EMWD is located in southwestern Riverside County. Our Service area is approximately 555 square miles with a population of 440,000, which is forecast to double

by the year 2020. The district is located in a semi-arid region of Southern California

and encompasses the 43rd, 44th and 48th congressional districts. Over the past fifty

(50) years EMWD’s service area has transformed from an agricultural base to predominantly urban areas. As with a majority of Southern California regional and

sub-regional suppliers, we must rely on an imported water supply. Today, we import

approximately 76% (70,000 AF) to meet our domestic water supply demands. We are

experiencing growth, at a pace much faster than other portions of the region. As

the urban core moves toward lands in our service area which are available for development, EMWD is faced with the challenge of developing and providing water supply reliability to its customers, in a practical and economical manner.

CHALLENGES

The challenge that we face is, an ever increasing demand for water and a supply,

governed by State and Federal authorities, that is further being diminished by regulatory, environmental, hydrological conditions and its own unique challenge with regard to quality. The ability, and reliability, of the State Water Project to deliver

water allocations being requested by their contractors is being reduced for the previously mentioned reasons. The Colorado River, governed by the Law of the River—

the main artery of Southern California water supply, can no longer be over appropriated because of the implementation of the California 4.4 Plan. Water quality from

both the State Water Project and the Colorado River is suffering due to environmental tradeoffs. Every year, Colorado river water quality is becoming more saline.

State Project water quality is affected by the environmental flow augmentations. Reliability of both of these major imported water supplies to deliver water to Southern

California is less than ideal. Aside from the challenges I’ve already outlined water

agencies in California are now faced with a new political challenge. Recently introduced State legislation, if enacted, will require water supply agencies to provide certification of the capability to supply the water demands of new development. Increasingly, Southern California water agencies are being placed at odds with land

use authorities and development interests. Water serves as the foundation for economic development. California’s economy cannot grow without water.

ACTIONS AND MEASURES

The Board and management of EMWD have been visionary since its establishment, with regard to projects and programs in our service area. That continued vision and your leadership on these issues, will help set the future for Southern California water supply security. In response to these emerging challenges, the District

has undertaken a series of innovative programs intended to improve the quantity,

quality and reliability of our customers’ water supply.

In conjunction with the municipalities, local water agencies and private groundwater producers within our service area, the District is developing and implementing regional groundwater management plans to optimize the use of local water

resources. This program will result in the collection of comprehensive data on

groundwater conditions, the stabilization of groundwater levels, and improved salinity management. As a result of these programs, EMWD is constructing its first

groundwater desalter and is planning two (2) additional facilities to treat otherwise

unusable brackish groundwater.

EMWD is working with local agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) and

the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to utilize local groundwater basins

to store imported water. This conjunctive use of available groundwater storage will

reduce EMWD’s peak demands on imported water supplies and improve supply reliability during periods of drought.

EMWD has fully implemented all ‘‘best management practices’’ recommended by

the State of California for water conservation. EMWD is committed to further conservation efforts and has established an award-winning conservation outreach and

public education program that is designed to pursue innovation and to challenge a

new generation of thinking and approaches.

EMWD, through utilization of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Small Reclamation

Projects Act, has made major investments in its water recycling program. During

66

peak demands, EMWD markets 100% of the recycled water produced by its five (5)

regional water reclamation plants. Uses include agricultural and landscape irrigation, environmental enhancement, and emerging industrial use.

In addition to expanded conservation and resource development, EMWD’s concerns over future water supply have led to increased emphasis on inter-agency planning and partnerships. EMWD is working more closely with MWD and SAWPA to

ensure reliable regional imported water supply. Additionally, EMWD, through interaction and partnering, is developing water resource strategies with the cities and

subagencies within our service area.

There are several areas where the water agencies of Southern California will require assistance in achieving long-term water security. The capital investment required to optimize local resources and implement regional conjunctive use programs

will be a major financial burden for local agencies. In particular, the costs of developing new water through desalinization, could inhibit indirect potable reuse and utilization of brackish groundwater.

Water quality will remain a major issue for local agencies. Regulatory issues may

result in changes in the salinity of imported water delivered to Southern California.

Salinity management will require extensive interregional and interstate cooperation

that may require legislative assistance.

Most importantly, the long-term water supply planning of all Southern California

water agencies is contingent upon the completion of the Cal–Fed process. That process will determine the approaches, programs and projects we need to have economic

and water security in Southern California. True long-term water supply planning

cannot be completed until Cal–Fed is complete. Southern California agencies will

need the support of local, State and Federal legislators to ensure that the Cal–Fed

process is completed in a reasonable amount of time.

ADDITIONAL MEASURES

Mr. Chairman, I’ve indicated the challenges facing EMWD as well as the actions

we are taking to address these issues. The Cal–Fed process is critical to California’s

water quality, supply, reliability solutions and ultimately its economic future. The

structure and details associated with how we want such matters governed is a key

component to our future ability in Southern California to meet our customers’ water

needs. Water quality projects must be a part of the program. Environmental regulation must be addressed but not at the sacrifice of water quality. Funding mechanisms must be in place to allow local agencies to implement the programs which

meet the goals and objectives of the Cal–FED framework and Record of Decision.

Funding is a key issue. A competitive grant program to plan, design and construct

water resource projects is a strong motivator to achieve such results.

Our path to assisting in this challenge is to revitalize the Small Reclamation

Projects Act. EMWD has successfully used this program three (3) times in its history. Many of the projects and actions taken by EMWD to ensure water supply reliability and water resource management have been funded by this program. This

program will provide agencies in Southern California, as well as the rest of the

West, an opportunity to implement projects, which, in the bigger picture, will allow

agencies to construct water resources management projects on a local level while at

the same time potentially ease the burden on California’s main import supply, and

the Colorado River. The program works and all agencies, big or small, can access

the various titles of the Act to build projects. Water resources management is not

just a California crisis, it impacts all of the West. It’s time to look the 21st century

in the eye and ‘‘invest in the West.’’ A 19.7% growth rate in the last decade is part

of the reason we’re here today.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, there are many crises facing the West, energy is getting all the headlines today, but as the old adage says ‘‘this too shall pass.’’ Abundant water supply, as noted from early history has been a critical issue for Southern

California. As each year passes the need increases. Water agencies are being subjected to providing assurances to their constituents that: 1) there will be water when

they turn on the tap 2) the water will of the highest quality 3) there will always

bean ample supply and, 4) it won’t be a challenge to their pocketbook. Your legislation, H.R. 1985, sets in motion the necessary components to help make those assurances. It recognizes the need for the establishment of a Cal–Fed program that embodies the principles of the Record of Decision, creates an effective Governance

mechanism, addresses the critical issues of water quality, while at the same time,

acknowledges the need for environmental considerations, timely decisions and permitting. EMWD applauds your effort and will do everything within it’s power and

authorities to assist in the successful enactment of this critical legislation.

67

STATEMENT OF JOHN STOVALL, GENERAL COUNSEL,

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

Mr. STOVALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank

you and the other members of the Committee for being here to take

this testimony. As indicated previously, my name is John Stovall.

I’m the Chairman—General Counsel, would like to be Chairman,

of the Kern County Water Agency. I was just joking with Mr. Libeu

a little earlier some people consider us part of Southern California.

We just have this little mountain range in between us. We do have

a lot in common because we are the second largest contractor on

the State Water Project, the largest agricultural contractor, and,

some people may not realize, the third largest municipal contractor

on the State Water Project. We run a municipal water treatment

plant, but we also wholesale water to other municipal and agricultural districts.

The problems that we have before us this year are really indicative of the problems we face in the future. In this first dry year,

after a couple of wet years, we have a 65 percent shortage on the

State Water Project. More significantly perhaps, our studies show

that in a repeat of the last drought the average shortage during the

drought period goes from 26 percent to 43 percent given current

conditions. Of course, we all know that California is growing at the

rate of several hundred thousand people per year. The situation

will only get worse.

In our view the crux of the problem is the lack of development

of infrastructure and that problem has arisen largely because of

perpetual conflicts that we have gotten ourselves into between interest groups, with certain Federal regulatory agencies, and even

among water users ourselves. Regulatory restrictions have, in fact,

diminished the capacity of the existing infrastructure over the past

few decades.

But the basic problem that causes all of this is a disrepair of the

coalition that was brought together by Pat Brown for infrastructure

development. He created the State Water Project through his skill

in bringing a coalition of all Californians together. We would like

to congratulate you and Mrs. Napolitano, your co-sponsors and

your staff on bringing this bill which is beginning to reformulate

that coalition of folks in California for progress.

At the local level what we’ve done is to improve our infrastructure. Along with our partners on the State Water Project we have

created what is known as the Kern Water Bank, a large groundwater banking project. Metropolitan, of course, has been engaged

in creation of the Diamond Valley Reservoir, and the other projects

you’ve heard about here today.

More importantly, we’ve learned to work together to manage our

water supplies more effectively. We are proud to call Metropolitan

and its member agencies, Santa Clara Water District and others,

our partners in putting together our water storage projects. We

have also engaged in transfers that are mutually beneficial for us.

We have also learned to work together even with some of those

environmental interest groups and Federal regulators, that we

have fought with in the past, in the CALFED process. The

CALFED process has been very successful. Kern County, as a

68

matter of fact, is one of the largest contributors to the environmental water account which came out of that CALFED process.

All of those things are good but much more is needed and that

is why your bill is so significant. These infrastructure improvements at the local level take a lot of money. Even groundwater

storage projects and recycling, which are among the most cost effective of these projects, require so much money that Federal investment is needed.

Certainly the CALFED projects themselves will require Federal

investment to be implemented. The CALFED framework agreement and record of decision require an effective governance mechanism to ensure that we do all ‘‘get better together’’ as the CALFED

saying goes.

Your bill is, in the medium term, critical for our future. But in

the long-term future of California, you are right that CALFED and

the projects identified there alone do not solve the problem. Californians need to come together to reformulate that coalition for infrastructure development that is environmentally sensitive and responsible.

There unfortunately is no substitute for creating that infrastructure and your bill goes a long way to putting us on that path.

Again, we offer our congratulations to you, Mrs. Napolitano and

your staff on a job well done.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Gallucci, City Manager of the city that we are in today,

Cerritos.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stovall follows:]

Statement of John F. Stovall, General Counsel, Kern County Water Agency,

Bakersfield, California

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Kern County Water

Agency on the important issues you are considering today related to the Western

Water Enhancement Security Act. My name is John F. Stovall and I am the General

Counsel of the Kern County Water Agency. Additional personal information will be

submitted as an exhibit.

The Kern County Water Agency is a local governmental entity with political

boundaries encompassing the County of Kern, a territory approximately the size of

Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island combined with a population of more than

600,000 people. Almost 1 million acres of the most productive farmland in the world

and about 400,000 people rely on the Agency for a significant portion of their water

supply. The Agency is the largest contractor for agricultural water on the State

Water Project, and also the third largest contractor for municipal water.

We are proud of our partnership with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California and other water suppliers in attempting to solve the water problems facing our constituents. As Californians become more aware of the looming water crisis, we look forward to the developing partnerships with all elements of the state

and federal governments to solve the problems before us. Together we can significantly reduce the damage which will accompany the next drought. Let’s address the

three major questions before us.

1. The factors that have led to the challenges that Southern California is

facing today in regards to water supply, quality, and reliability.

Inadequate Infrastructure

The short answer is that our population has more than doubled over the past

quarter century with no development of meaningful new state infrastructure and an

actual loss of water supply and system flexibility. In 1960 California had a population of 15.7 million people; today we have 33.8 million people. By the year 2040

some projections place us at 59 million people. To emphasize the point: yield of our

major water supply systems (along with hydroelectric power generation capability)

69

has dropped significantly over the past decade. Our infrastructure is woefully inadequate to serve current needs, much less the significant growth which will occur in

the coming decades.

We are not here to point fingers of blame, but we must recognize the basic problem to prevent its perpetual recurrence. Along with the Metropolitan Water District

of Southern California and other local governmental entities, we have made the improvements we can, but they have been insufficient.

Perpetual Counter–Productive Conflict

Attempts to improve infrastructure development, water supply and drinking

water quality have faced tremendous challenges born of competing interests. The

challenges have come not only from those focused on a narrow environmental agenda, but from within our own ranks as battles have ensued over dwindling supplies.

The promise of CalFed, and the bill we are discussing today, is to harness the talent

and energy of all stakeholders in a constructive effort to minimize the conflicts that

have generated more attorney’s fees than water, and to pursue optimal and reasonable solutions for mutual benefits. The stakeholders involved in the CalFed process

have begun the constructive effort to improve water supply, drinking water quality,

and the Bay–Delta ecosystem. Before turning to that effort, we should look in more

detail at the factors that have brought us to this point.

A new recognition of the need to appropriately protect the environment has attracted the interest of both the Congress and the legislature. It has also attracted

the attention of interest groups focused on various narrow aspects of environmental

law. As a simple statement of fact, the power of such groups to block water development has been significant. Some of these groups have responsibly pursued their

agendas; some have not.

Additionally, regulatory agencies with a mission focused exclusively on narrow

species preservation objectives have pursued those goals very zealously (we would

say overzealously) in the past. The result has been significant litigation and impasses limiting water development. It has also resulted in the diminution of capacity

of existing facilities.

Water districts and other water suppliers have responded with litigation to protect the rights of their constituents. An atmosphere of confrontation had arisen between water districts and species focused regulatory agencies.

Mistrust between water users has led to much conflict. As the supply of water

has dwindled, the temptation has been to resist any measures which have the

slightest potential to impact our own water supplies. Unfortunately, some of this

paranoia is reinforced by those within the water community who have attacked the

rights of their neighbors.

These conflicts have not just expended energy and resources. More subtly, they

have resulted in strident defenses of positions and inflexibility with little focus on

creating compatibility of interests. They have limited the willingness to engage in

creative and constructive problem solving efforts. They have resulted in a lack of

trust which impairs the search for cooperative solutions.

Disrepair of the Coalition for Progress

Governor Pat Brown is a symbol of the generation that built California. His legacy

is the infrastructure which made California life the envy of the world. The Edmund

G. ‘‘Pat’’ Brown California Aqueduct—more than 800 miles of working concrete and

steel—is a symbol of the achievements of a bipartisan coalition of laborers, farmers,

businessmen, and Californians from all walks of life. It’s crowning glory was the

groundbreaking on joint federal and state facilities led by Governor Brown and

President John Kennedy. A primary factor in our problems today is that the coalition needed to build meaningful infrastructure has fallen into disrepair.

The great State Water Project which contracted with local governments throughout the state to deliver 4.2 million acre-feet of water per year reliably, by most accounts can deliver less than 2 million acre-feet reliably though it once was able to

deliver approximately 2.3 million acre-feet. During the last drought California suffered major water shortages and major economic loss. The situation has deteriorated, and in spite of the efforts of water suppliers the yield from the State Water

Project and Central Valley Project have diminished. The graph on the following

page depicts past deliveries from the State Water Project preliminary to and during

the last drought cycle and in a hypothetical repetition of those years under current

conditions. It illustrates the severity of the situation we face. During the last

drought period average State Water Project shortages were 26%. Our projections indicate that during a repeat of that drought the average shortage would be 43%. This

assumes a constant demand level. Of course, we know that despite our best conservation efforts demand will increase.

70

The situation may be worse than projected. In this first dry year, after a fortunate

series of wet years, the State Water Project is only able to deliver a 35% supply.

This is less than the projections indicate. We believe that a coalition for reasonable

environmentally sensitive water development has already begun, but it must be fostered. We must focus on reasonable solutions to our water supply, water quality,

and environmental problems. We cannot insist on unanimity in acceptance of these

solutions because that simply gives a veto to interests opposed to water development

under any circumstances. Instead, representatives of the people must determine

what is reasonable. We must then seek a consensus, a coalition with critical mass,

that will foster those reasonable solutions.

2. The actions and measures that you have taken to improve upon your

water supply, quality and reliability.

71

We have learned that the most effective way of addressing the challenges before

us is to do what we can at home and then engage in cooperative efforts with our

friends such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Santa

Clara Valley Water District, and many others. We have also learned that we have

to engage in cooperative efforts with other responsible groups with other interests

that are willing to rationally and reasonably look for mutually beneficial solutions

to California’s problems. We are, for example, major suppliers for the Environmental Water Account.

Local Initiatives and Cooperation Among Districts

Among our friends we have made significant progress in diminishing the pending

impacts of the decline in the state and federal water supply projects. These local

agencies are working day and night to improve conservation, storage and conveyance at the local level.

The Diamond Valley Reservoir of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California is an excellent example of a local agency investing heavily in facilities to

minimize the impacts of water shortages. Our own Kern Water Bank project for underground storage of water is another example. Each of us work to improve our own

situation.

Perhaps more importantly, we look for opportunities for joint efforts to improve

the quantity and quality of our supplies. The efforts of our Semitropic Water Storage District in conjunction with Metropolitan, Santa Clara and others utilize underground storage available in Kern for the mutual benefit of these districts and all

users of the Kern County ground water basin. Along with the Kern Water Bank Authority, many of our Member Units and the Agency are exploring additional efforts.

Transfers, both short and long-term are another mechanism for more effective use

of our existing water supplies. Such efforts require cooperation among water users,

and tremendous investment in facilities. The state has provided significant funding

to enhance our ability to make these investments thus far, but far more must be

done to resolve the crisis at hand.

Responsible Water Development Yields Environmental Benefits

Underground storage of water can also have tremendous environmental benefits.

The Kern Water Bank is an example of the successful multiple use of facilities that

can provide significant ecosystem improvements while improving water storage.

These projects, however, must have enough surface storage available to create

enough flexibility in the overall system to maximize their benefits. Absent that surface storage, the benefits can be significantly impaired due to power requirements

and conveyance restrictions.

Given the concerns regarding global warming, we believe that investment in surface storage enhancements can have significant environmental benefits in the production of more clean hydroelectric energy. Certainly additional flexibility in the

water systems will create more opportunities for off-peak pumping and other capacity benefits.

Involvement in Statewide Cooperative Initiatives

On a larger scale, our Agency, along with other contractors on the State Water

Project, has been actively engaged in cooperative processes. After the numerous and

protracted conflicts of the 1980’s resulted in no improvement to the yield of the

State Water Project, we suffered catastrophic consequence in the last drought culminating in no State Water Project deliveries of agricultural water to our area in 1991.

We also faced additional loss of tremendous amounts of water to overzealous enforcement of the federal Endangered Species Act in 1992 through 1994. We realized

that the economic survival of our county required that we engage state and federal

regulators, and even non-governmental interest groups in a cooperative effort to

reach mutually beneficial solutions. Many others, including the Metropolitan Water

District of Southern California, came to the same realization. The state and federal

governments led the effort. The joint effort led to the Bay–Delta Accord, the birth

of CalFed, and ultimately the CalFed Framework for Action (‘‘Framework Agreement’’) which led to the current Record of Decision by the Department of the Interior and related actions by other state and federal agencies.

That effort did stop the hemorrhaging of our water supply due to the federal Endangered Species Act, but it did so at a significant cost in water supply. Yet, after

years of the CalFed process we continue to believe it represents the best hope of

achieving both water supply improvements and environmental improvements. But,

we have also re-learned two great truths: the first is reflected in the phrase ‘‘trust

but verify’’, and the second the reality that consensus does not and cannot mean

unanimity.

72

By the former, we mean that mere promises of ‘‘getting better together’’ or mutual

benefit must be backed by meaningful controls and commitments to ensure that balance is achieved; significant gains by ecosystem focused stakeholders must be balanced with benefits to water users. By the latter, we refer to the previously mentioned truth that it is impossible to have a meaningful solution which satisfies the

agendas of all groups; if one group or person can veto a solution then no meaningful

solution is possible.

CalFed has produced a Framework Agreement between the State and Federal

governments which does provide significant benefits for water supply, water quality

and the ecosystem if it is implemented to achieve mutual benefit. The Record of Decision, though ambiguous on some points, generally reflects that Framework Agreement. It is a meaningful beginning if its implementation tracks the Framework

Agreement.

We must conclude this section, however, with the realistic assessment that all of

these efforts, if successful, only partially solve the problem. Far more is required

to begin to resolve the infrastructure deficit and water supply crisis that faces current Californians, and the many millions more who will join us in the next few decades. The bill before you not only supports CalFed’s efforts, but moves forward with

significant funding for more local projects to help solve the problem.

3. What additional measures or assistance may be needed in the short,

mid, and long term to improve your water security.

We must continue to develop cooperation and facilities at the local level to minimize the damage which will be suffered in the next drought. The 65% shortage on

the State Water Project this year reminds us of the woeful inadequacy of the state

and federal systems. We are not suffering the catastrophic consequences of this

shortage today, because of the facilities built by local governments. But if additional

dry years ensue, local facilities will be inadequate.

We must also implement the existing Record of Decision and develop the water

storage and conveyance facilities inherent in it. These are a minimum requirement

to allow survival in the medium term.

The bill before you is of invaluable assistance in both of these efforts. The provisions of the grant and loan programs provide federal assistance in the significant

capital cost of developing facilities in California as well as throughout the west. As

mentioned, the cost of developing local facilities to maximize our effectiveness in

managing supplies is enormous. Costs for single pumps of the capacities and depths

required can average half a million dollar. The capital costs of recycling are also

enormous. Of course, capital costs of surface storage are even greater, but these facilities are necessary components of a flexible system. While we might like to see

a greater federal cost share, we understand the political realities involved and appreciate greatly the assistance which is provided by the bill.

The investment in CalFed facilities for water supply and quality improvement is

also sorely needed. The facilities proposed are environmentally sound and we believe

accepted by those responsible environmentalists who are committed mutually beneficial solutions in the Delta. We certainly anticipate, indeed expect, some opposition

from some extreme interests. You must continue to pursue the high road of reasonable and balanced solutions to the problems before us. We encourage you to press

on with the funding and controls in the Western Water Enhancement Security Act

to ensure that the CalFed program is administered in a manner consistent with the

Framework Agreement and ROD, i.e., a balanced approach to provide benefits to all

stakeholders.

In the long term Californians must engage in more dialogue among themselves

and federal regulators to move beyond this stage of CalFed and develop the trust

and cooperation necessary to (1) further improve storage in an environmentally

sound manner, (2) further improve conveyance facilities for water supply reliability

and drinking water quality, and (3) further stabilize delta facilities from exposure

to catastrophic earthquake related loss. We recognize that your bill cannot appropriately go beyond what it has done. Resolution of these additional matters must

await development of more trust and cooperation among Californians.

STATEMENT OF ART GALLUCCI, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF

CERRITOS, CALIFORNIA

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, the City of

Cerritos operates two utilities, public utilities, water. One is a tertiary water system reused water, and the other is a potable system.

I want to talk about the tertiary first.

73

When you approach the city of Cerritos and you came into this

particular development, you saw very lush green lawns. I want to

emphasize that every one of these lawns are irrigated with tertiary

water. All of the center medians, our 24 parks, our 27 schools, and

our college is all irrigated with tertiary water in the city. We are

one of the few cities that can boast that. That was due to Jerry

Brown.

Governor Jerry Brown put a grant in and we applied for the

grant when he was governor. We did receive that grant along with

city dollars. We developed this particular tertiary water system

where we irrigate all of these facilities within the city of Cerritos.

That is to us extremely important.

We use 2,000 acre-feet a year. We also sell our surplus tertiary

water to our neighboring city Norwalk, to Caltrans. All of the freeways are irrigated adjacent here with tertiary water. We also sell

to the City of Lakewood. We try to assist them in keeping their

water rates down.

We sell it to them for the same price that we have so there is

no mark up for that water. As you know, tertiary water is much,

much cheaper than the potable water. For that 2,000 acre-feet of

tertiary that we use, it saves us equal amount of potable water so

there’s 2,000 savings on our potable on an annual basis.

Now, to jump into our potable system, we have 16,000 connections in the city with out potable system. We use 15,000 acre-feet

of water a year, potable water. That’s not the tertiary, just the potable. Some of the important items to us is the unfunded mandates.

I’m speaking on behalf of cities now.

Cities are just fearful of regulations that are coming down, unfunded mandates that are going to mandate additional cleanup of

our potable water. Now, all of us want clean, potable water but the

mandates that are passed, we are getting to the point where we are

going to have to pump the water out of the ground through our system and use reverse osmosis eventually to clean it before it even

goes into the system.

These are through one of the new issues that you are talking

about and Washington is concerned about, some of the new toxins

that they are finding in there that are in the water and they want

them cleaned greater than they have ever been cleaned before.

That is causing a major, major impact on cities for these unfunded

mandates.

Fortunately, our utility we are in a very fine financial system

with our utility. We can deal with it. Most of the cities in the area

are having a difficult time. Fortunately, Congresswoman

Napolitano and our neighbors in Norwalk, we work together on

cleaning up military toxic base that she just said closed that had

numerous oil storage facilities on it.

One of the byproducts of that is now we are dealing with MTBE

that are down in the aquifer and Norwalk and Cerritos are working with the Federal Government on cleaning that up. It hasn’t

reached the aquifer but our tremendous fear is that it’s going to

reach the aquifer so we are pumping and cleaning. We are working

with Congresswoman Solis’ district on keeping the plume in the

northern part and we are monitoring that.

74

We are all in an association, the City of Norwalk, all of the cities

that she represents, Congresswoman Napolitano represents, to

keep the plume isolated. The cost of that to cities and municipalities—I want to keep coming back as my whole function which is

municipal financing and the issue to cities.

I can’t emphasize enough the interest to cities is the unfunded

mandates and the additional mandates placed on cleanup. Something that just occurred in California that I know is not an issue

here but it is an issue that relates to water, and that is the cost

of electricity. The local cities have to pump it out of the ground and

then pump that water around. That is electric. Our bill just skyrocketed.

Every city around us has skyrocketed. Now, this is not your issue

but it’s an issue that deals with water and it has continued to raise

with the price of water. Again, I want to emphasize the unfunded

mandates that we are fearful of and I am and the MTBE issue that

is also a major, major concern to myself and our city and the City

of Norwalk who we share these common borders with.

With that, thank you for allowing me to testify.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, CITY OF NORWALK,

NORWALK MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM

Mr. DAVIS. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, members of the

Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address

you this afternoon.

My name again for the record is Chris Davis. I’m with the Norwalk Municipal Water System. I’m here to give you kind of the

local municipal perspective on water quality issues and infrastructure.

Just a little background. The Norwalk Municipal Water System

services a population of about 3,400 homes and businesses, or

about 14,000 residents or people. It’s about 14 percent of the City

of Norwalk. We are the third largest purveyor in the city of Norwalk. First, let me address the issue of water quality. This is clearly a very important issue for us, as Mr. Gallucci alluded to, with

the recent closing of the Defense Fuel Supply Point in Norwalk. We

are certainly concerned about the plumes off of that facility.

Additionally, in October 1999 we lost one of our three wells due

to contamination. This forced us to increase our reliance on imported water where we had previously been servicing that area

from groundwater.

Now, fortunately through a program with the Water Replenishment District of Southern California we are working on getting

that well back on line. This is through their safe drinking water

program. If all goes according to plan, we should have it back up

between 12 and 18 months from now. That kind of illustrates how

much of an impact water quality issues can have on us.

Another issue I wanted to touch on is Chromium 6 which has

gotten a lot more attention due to the recent movie Erin

Brockovich and the resulting lawsuits. We did go ahead and test

our system for this substance. Fortunately it came up nondetect.

We are very mindful of potential legislation and regulations coming

75

out of both Washington and Sacramento which could have a major

impact on a small purveyor like us.

The second issue I wanted to touch on is infrastructure. As a

small system we have not, unfortunately, been able to make the

type of wholesale changes or upgrades to our system that we would

like to. Nonetheless, our city council has made upgrading the infrastructure a top priority for our system.

Currently we are in the third year of a 4-year valve replacement

program which would allow us to better isolate any potential problems so that it affects smaller areas of our population and basically

to mitigate the damage that either a major leak or contamination

would have.

Our major capital improvement priority, however, is the construction of a five million gallon water reservoir. The need for this

reservoir was identified in a study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which was conducted back in 1996. This would address storage capacity shortfalls and would provide a safe supply of drinking

water. Right now we are working to secure funding for this program in order to proceed with construction.

That concludes my remarks.

Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate that, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Everts. Is that how you pronounce your name, sir?

STATEMENT OF CONNER EVERTS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATERSHED ALLIANCE

Mr. EVERTS. Thank you very much. I am honored not just to be

last and give a little wrap-up but I want to thank both the Chair,

the Representatives, the Committee staff, and your own staff who

have helped me at the last moment put all this together.

I’m glad also the record is still open so I can submit some more

information.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. EVERTS. Thank you very much. I am here really to say that

the watershed movement is alive and well in Southern California.

Throughout Southern California I work with over 60 organizations

on a very local level doing all the things we just talked about. This

doesn’t happen alone and without a regional approach.

I don’t think we have a north/south issue here. I think we really

have a perspective of what the rest of California—potentially what

the rest of the country could look like with the stresses of growth

and development and industry that is happening across Southern

California without much long-term planning. We are now in the

implementation stage of CALFED after the rod.

These things have not happened alone. While Southern California and major urban areas in Northern California have a flat

water demand because of their investment and conservation reclamation, that has also included money from the Federal Government and the Bureau of Reclamation to make that happen.

It’s also a challenge with public participation the educational

issue goes on and on. We have a partnership with LADWPM, the

San Fernando Westside Recycling Plant. San Diego has also voted

down a recycling plant. The money and the investment is there but

to really make reclamation work as we heard it has worked successfully in some municipalities, it’s an ongoing issue.

76

The issue of energy keeps coming up. The direct link between the

amount of water it takes to pump water from Kern County over to

Hatchapies and the savings in the investment and conservation are

now more apparent than ever. There is an excellent study that I’ll

include by Professor Bob Wilkinson that over a year ago before we

hit these high prices and energy really pointed to that.

I also want to point out jobs and economic development that has

come out of the community-based organizations that have made our

water conservation programs work. They have not happened just,

with all due respect, to the agencies who I am happy to be sitting

here with. They have done a very good job but they have done it

in partnership with community-based organizations. So it is very

cost effective to put the demand before the supply.

I lastly wanted to touch on your comment on climate change.

What we really see now are extremes in different places and where

we may get our water from and traditionally expect water to come

from. For instance, in the northeast part of California in the Feather River System they are low on water while we’ve got more water

than the Seattle area this year in Southern California.

It really pushes the need for us to maximize our local resources

and do all the things we’ve been talking about, cleaning up our

local ground water, conjunctive use, better use of reclamation and

conservation.

I haven’t even talked about environmental restoration because I

think we get to that through all these methods we have been talking to. Thank you very much.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Everts, talking about the legislation that is being proposed, H.R. 1985, we have obviously gone beyond the initial CALFED legislation in that we have two additional

sections in the bill. One that involves grants to local communities

through California.

I want to stress for the record this is not just for Southern California. East Bay MUD, for instance, has some very important

projects that they find very important for their region. Sacramento

has a conjunctive water project that they think is very important

for their water future.

Certainly whether Kern County is north or south depends on

who you talk to but obviously they have some projects that they believe are very important to California’s water future. We have a

reclamation loan program that can fund either environmental enhancement programs or helps fund the same type of programs

through a loan program to augment the grant program.

You have indicated in your testimony these are important. Are

you in favor of those sections of the bill that help communities leverage resources to build those types of things?

Mr. EVERTS. Of course I am. I really see that it is a statewide

and even the whole west is connected in terms of these water

issues. As much as we can point to what we have done in Southern

California, our water supplies come from other watersheds and so

we have to be involved in those efforts as well.

I would like to say I am Convenor of the California Urban Water

Conservation Council, a statewide agency, and there is a real opportunity now to push these programs on a regional level because

77

that is really how the governance works as our Southern California

Association of Governments talk about their programs.

I would like to say just in response is that I think those conservation reclamation programs and the water quality have to

come first before the investment goes into supply. I think that is

where the cost effective and immediate results happen to be. They

also happen to be the most environmentally beneficial.

Mr. CALVERT. Certainly there will be a debate on the entire legislation whether it be supply or reclamation or conjunctive use and

whether it is the money portion or the storage portion. I don’t think

anybody denies a need for water and better utilization of water

here in California. I appreciate your— Mr. EVERTS. We hope to work with you from the environmental

community. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Everts follows:]

78

79

80

Mr. CALVERT. Larry, we have worked together over the years on

various things and obviously one comment that hasn’t been talked

about, or we haven’t talked about too much, is the reclamation

process of this bill. You have been kind of involved in that over the

years. Do you have any comment about that portion of the bill and

what that means? Not just to California but to the western states

and what they can do to help leverage water supply in the western

states.

Mr. LIBEU. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity to respond to that.

As you said, we have worked on this legislation, or this part of

your legislation for a long time. I think it’s important for people to

realize that your legislation—when you prepared this legislation

you realized that water resource management and shortage of

water supply is just not a California issue. You took into consideration that the entire west is faced with the same problems.

I commend you for your foresight in melting together with your

CALFED legislation an additional piece of legislation which will

allow the other western states, as well as members of the state of

California, agencies in California, to access additional Federal dollars to build programs.

One of the things that I think is real interesting and unique

about Title II of your legislation is that there are three separate

titles within that. You can build relatively large projects with the

maximum Federal exposure of $50 million. But for the smaller

agencies like the City of Norwalk, places where the upper San Gabriel River Valley Basin need to implement smaller projects on a

quicker basis. There is a small partnership program which allows

grants of up to $5 million on a 50/50 basis.

And for our long-term or bigger projects there are loan guarantees for people. We have worked a long time to put this together.

I commend you on adding it to your CALFED legislation in realizing that the Federal Government has got a tremendous financial

commitment to infrastructure in California already.

We need to supplement that with new monies and partnership

amongst the State of California and the agencies here to improve

that and to put together the tools for the 21st Century that is going

to make water supply and water management in the west the number one issue. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Stovall, over the last 20 years your contract

water supply has decreased obviously. What has been the major

reasons for that reduction?

Mr. STOVALL. Well, a number of reasons. During the early ’80’s

D1485 reduced supplies to improve salinity balances within the

Delta. Since the early 1990’s there have been restrictions imposed

for endangered species protection that have sometimes impacted

pumping and the cumulative effect of those has reduced the yield

from about 2.3 million acre-feet down to somewhat less than 2 on

the State Water Project.

Mr. CALVERT. Appreciate that.

Ms. Napolitano.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is the same resounding message here, that we need to take a look at the overall

picture and work in coalitions rather than continue the band-aid

81

approaches of the past. I tend to agree so much with that kind of

approach. I’ve been working on the Colorado cleanup of the uranium tailings up in Moab for the last year and a half with Representative Chris Cannon because that is a potential detriment to

the drinking water in Southern California. We get, what, 30 percent almost of that water and if we ever get a flood, a 100-year

flood up there, we are in deep trouble because it contains uranium

tailings.

What we were able to accomplish with a coalition is bring all the

parties, the governors together, all of the water folks along the Colorado River that have an interest in the Colorado, my colleagues

on both sides of the isle, as well as my Democratic colleagues. We

were able to get that piece of legislation moved through last year.

Now we are just looking for the funding.

What we thought we would have this year is the second step to

that, and that would be to address the salinity from that area because there were 50 percent of the water fix-up. Fifty percent of the

land that it traverses through are Federal lands. It is incumbent

for the Federal Government to clean up some of that so you have

less to clean up on the lower end or at the middle end and then

down to Mexico.

The problem sometimes we find, and Mr. Stovall, you hit it on

the head when you say in your statement the mistrust between

water users has left much conflict. Unfortunately, it’s egos. It is

turf. It is many things that we tend to think are paramount to our

success.

We are fortunate we have a Chairman who feels that working in

conjunction is going to lead us to solutions rather than it is his turf

because he is the Chairman. That is why I am thankful to him for

holding the water hearings that are at least going to allow us together to listen to what the users are saying are going to lead us

to the solutions rather than just the bandit approach again.

However, we must also consider that if we don’t work in unison,

that means you have your share of work to do. It is convincing your

local Federal representatives to work together to get this to happen

because we all will win. If not, we all lose.

I thank you very much. Especially Art, you and Chris, for coming

in at the last minute subbing in for the city, the muni version of

what you have to do. Since I come from the municipal government,

I hold dear the fact that cities have to pay inordinate amounts to

clean up their water wells so that they can provide for the cities

and they are not even connected to the water supply. In other

words, you can’t melt them down to cut down the contaminants in

those wells because they are separate and apart. Somehow we need

to help the munis deal with their own issues so that we don’t have

to import more water thereby using less electricity and less of that

source that Northern Californians would love to have.

In the meantime, I still think we have a long-term education

process that we need to become more open to. As you speak, do not

just speak to water users but speak to the children and the schools,

the teachers, the media. Anybody who will listen because it’s going

to be all of us working together that we are going to be able to

come to the solution.

82

I don’t really have any more questions. You’ve covered them. But

if you can sense the frustration in my voice, it is because I’ve been

at it for a long time and we are still there trying. If it hadn’t been

for this man to bring it to our backyard and ask for our input, I

think we would still be trying to figure out who is on first base.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Solis.

Ms. SOLIS. I don’t have any questions either except this was a

very insightful last panel. There is a lot of good issues that came

up, particularly the municipalities and the things that they have

to go through.

Right now I have in two areas of my district where they have

found chromium 6 in what happens to be a public city library in

the City of Rosemead. Going about trying to assess who is responsible, how you pay for that cleanup, and where else it might be

found obviously is a very sensitive issue and very controversial because our constituents are demanding that we do something as

well.

The science is going on. I now there are some legislative efforts

in Sacramento as well as through Congressman Adam Shift to

start looking at how to identify what levels are safe and unsafe and

what have you. Those are very important. I would hope we could

continue to have those discussions on this Committee and likewise

look at what current resources, natural resources we have now in

our basin that are not being utilized.

I know in the San Gabriel Valley I worked very hard to get legislation passed to create a state conservancy at the San Gabriel

River and LA River as they connect. There is a whole potential

there to start looking at some ideas that you spoke about, Mr.

Linsky, about trying to, if you will, create these artificial watersheds that we desperately need that perhaps some of our local municipalities and other organizations can also tap into and help us

in providing that kind of support.

I am very interested in hearing more about whatever information

you have and likewise understand the needs and pressures of our

local municipalities. I want to thank the panel and I want to thank

the Chairman for calling this Committee together.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Years ago, I’m a baseball fan, and I went out to watch a great

movie, Field of Dreams. Remember the premise of that movie is

build it and they will come. I think if we had a strategy in California, it would be don’t build it and they will come anyway.

I think that has been proven here in our state. Infrastructure

has been ignored for a number of years and I don’t point any fingers at anyone. I think Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, as we prioritize how we spend money, other things

get in the way. I think we have come to the point where we can’t

ignore it any longer.

I want to thank my colleague in the Senate, Senator Feinstein,

who I think has stepped forward with legislation that she intended

to move through the Senate to bring a process in the Senate as we

are going to do in the House with H.R. 1985.

We have seen what crisis management is in the energy crisis. No

matter where you stand on that, I think there are decisions that

83

are being made today that people in public service and policy would

have found astounding several years ago.

I don’t want to get to that point in water management. I think

the environment would suffer because if we have to make decisions

for people versus fish or for migrating birds, obviously decisions

that would harm the environment probably would be made in order

to safeguard people.

We have maybe—maybe some time if we are lucky to do the

right thing and to move forward with legislation that will leverage

Federal assets to encourage the state and local users and so forth

throughout our great State of California to do what is necessary for

the residents of our great state and the tax payers to encourage

water development and enhancement throughout our regions.

With that, I look forward to future hearings. We are going to

have several. We are going to have one on June 30th in the Central

Valley and on July 2nd in San Jose, California. July 9th in Las

Vegas was mentioned to talk about salinity and other issues in the

upper basin states and why this legislation is not just for California, as Larry mentioned, but really for the entire west.

If anyone needs to contact our Committee or anything for additional information, please do so. I want to thank this panel for participating and answering our questions and I want to thank the

City of Cerritos for being such wonderful hosts and to Grace

Napolitano for suggesting it. This was a wonderful place to meet

and great facility here in Cerritos.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m. the Subcommittee Hearing was adjourned.]

The following additional materials were submitted for the record:

• Statement from Jan Breidenbach, Executive Director, Southern

California Association of Non-Profit Housing

• Letter from Martha Guzman, United Farm Workers of

America, AFL-CIO

• Letter from Richard Lambros, Executive Vice President,

Building Industry Association of Southern California

• Letter from Robert Reeves, Sr., Executive President, AFSCME

Local 1902

• Statement from Todd Spitzer, Supervisor, Third District,

Orange County

Statement of Jan Breidenbach, Executive Director, Southern California

Association of Non–Profit Housing

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jan

Breidenbach, Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Non–Profit Housing. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of affordable housing advocates throughout Southern California.

BACKGROUND ON SCANPH

The Southern California Association of Non–Profit Housing (SCANPH) is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the development, preservation and

management of permanently affordable housing for low-income people. SCANPH believes that the non-profit community development industry is the best vehicle of attainment of this goal.

SCANPH was founded in 1989 when a community of non-profit developers recognized that they had reached a level of growth that required the establishment of

an umbrella organization . By 1996, SCANPH grew to over 500 members in the region -- including non-profit housing developers, social service agencies and community groups, private businesses, local government agencies, lenders, and numerous

84

individuals engaged in affordable housing issues. Our members are located in Los

Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.

Non-profit housing is not just another way to develop real estate. Nor is it just

good social policy. It is an economic development machine. Through the financing,

production and management of this real estate, job opportunities are created and

communities are strengthened. In short, the production of affordable housing, like

all construction, is a major contributor to regional economic growth.

LINKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NEED FOR RELIABLE, HIGH QUALITY WATER SUPPLY

However, without a reliable, high quality water supply our ability to provide affordable housing will not exist. California has 9 of the nation’s 10 least affordable

housing markets, including 7 of the top 7. A kindergarten teacher in Downtown Los

Angeles needs over $78,096 in additional income to afford the median-priced home.

Yet, we are under-producing housing. Last year

marked the 10th consecutive year of housing production at roughly 50 percent of

demand. The annual housing deficit for Los Angeles County, forecast by the Department of Housing and Community development, is expected to be 28,000 units. We

cannot continue down this path if we hope to achieve a higher quality of life for

the citizens of our region.

Water availability is considered in every housing development decision made in

California today. It is considered by the builder, the water agency, and the local government in the acquisition, planning, design, environmental analysis, project entitlement, construction, landscaping and mitigation monitoring stages. The California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires consideration of the availability of

water utility service and the California Water Code requires preparation of a water

availability assessment for regionally significant housing projects. The reliability of

current water supplies is being used increasingly as the basis for no-growth and

NIMBY legal challenges to new housing developments.

The cost of water infrastructure influences the cost of housing. Unfortunately, the

most recent trend has been to shift the responsibility of infrastructure costs away

from the broad constituency that benefits from new public facilities to the next person to move into the neighborhood. The result has been higher housing prices, lower

housing production, and an inadequate supply of housing to shelter California’s families.

Improve Reliability

We would define an ‘‘equitable’’ distribution of the costs of new water infrastructure as one where new development pays for a fair share of new water facilities,

but the trend of disproportionately burdening new home buyers for the costs of public facilities is broken. The reliability and quality of the water supply influences the

operational costs to the homeowner or renter in their monthly water bills. Higher

development fees, benefit assessments, and connection fees just lead to even higher

monthly water utility expenses and to the challenge of providing affordable housing

for our society.

We support development of a more comprehensive program to improve reliability

of the existing California water delivery system through increased levee maintenance, reinforcement and repair. State, federal, and local agencies should examine

options for maintaining and strengthening the aging State Water Project, Central

Valley Project, Colorado River Aqueduct, Los Angeles Aqueduct, and other vital canals from seismic, flood or other failures. Contingency plans should be developed

and updated annually to permit emergency water transfers in the event of failure

of one or more of these major water arteries.

Increase Storage

We also recommend increasing off-stream storage facilities north and south of the

Bay–Delta. With inherently inadequate water supplies and competing demands, as

much flexibility should be built into California’s water supply, storage and delivery

system as possible. A key objective of future water management programs should

be to alleviate potential regional water shortfalls. A water delivery system should

be designed to minimize the suffering of any one region when statewide water shortages occur. We support increased storage capacity and new storage facilities as the

best means to minimize the damaging consequences of future droughts.

WESTERN WATER ENHANCEMENT SECURITY ACT

H.R. 1985 (Rep. Calvert–R), or the ‘‘Water Enhancement Security Act,’’ provides

a ground-breaking approach to ensuring a reliable and high quality water supply

for Southern Californians. The bill authorizes funding for a comprehensive plan that

85

will prevent a looming water crisis in California, and will result in tangible benefits

to Southern California.

Short-term we need grants and loans to make Southern California less dependent

upon imported water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. We support the provisions in H.R. 1985 that could provide funding for new storage

projects, surface or groundwater, in Southern California to make our region less dependent upon imported water. We also welcome the potential for increased local investments in water conservation and reclamation that increase our efficient use of

currently available water supplies.

Mid-term we need funding for the first stage of CALFED water supply and quality projects as described in the CALFED Framework and Record of Decision. It is

critical that the agreements reached between state and federal agencies be implemented in a balanced manner that increases water supplies and improves the water

quality of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. H.R. 1985 provides an important federal funding commitment necessary to support the policy agreements reached by

state and federal agencies to enhance the Delta’s ecosystem, increase the reliability

of its water supply and improve its water quality.

Long-term we need to develop the water storage and conveyance facilities required to meet a growing population. Housing does not create population growth!

Housing is a response to an increasing population’s need for shelter. We need to responsibly plan for both California’s future housing and water needs today, rather

than react to increasing shortages of both. With the long lead times required for approval and construction of any major infrastructure project, we recommend that the

feasibility of both new statewide level infrastructure, such as an isolated Delta conveyance facility, and regional water storage options continue to be pursued to meet

future water needs. We also support aggressive research and development of new

desalination technologies as a potential longer-term solution to our future water

needs.

H.R. 1985 bill will enable the state to get ahead of a potential water shortage and

environmental disaster in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, a critical component

of Southern California’s water supply, providing nearly two-thirds of the drinking

water for the state.

A high quality and reliable water supply has never been more important to our

region. While demand for water is increasing in our ever-growing region, we face

a decline in supply, with a federal mandate to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River.

CONCLUSION

In the next 20 years, California’s population is expected to grow to more than 45

million people. The Department of Water Resources estimates that the gap between

water supply and demand will total 2.4 million acre-feet in normal years of precipitation and up to 6.2 million acre feet in drought years by 2020.

The future of Southern California depends on managing our limited water resources wisely and responsibly. H.R. 1985 is a giant step toward the goal of clean,

reliable water supplies for a growing population, as well as for farms, industry, and

the environment.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the many affordable housing advocates and most importantly, the countless families that need

affordable housing in Southern California.

Thank you.

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

(95)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON CENTRAL

CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY -- OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Saturday, June 30, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Modesto, California

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., at the Modesto Board/Council Chambers, 1010 10th Street, Modesto,

California, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. Good morning. First I want to thank everybody for

attending and it’s great to be here in Modesto with my good friend

Gary Condit and his congressional district and a delightful evening

last night here in Modesto. It reminded me of my hometown with

all of those great muscle cars going down on the main drag of Modesto. It’s a wonderful community.

The reason we’re here is to talk about water and certainly the

future of California depends on the future of California’s water security.

Everyone that has taken time to come here today understands

the importance of water and water availability, reliability and supplies to our well-being, our environment and this state and country.

We’ve convened this hearing as an opportunity to listen to the

perspective of those closest to the issue. An important work of addressing California’s water security has a strong foundation in the

CalFed Bay-Delta program and the record decisions. This program

contains a balanced holistic approach dealing with water security

and the Bay-Delta Area and the impacts on water issues across the

state and the West.

We have introduced legislation to assure that this important program continues to progress from the formative stage to grow into

a strong cohesive and balanced program as needed into the distant

future.

As Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee I believe

Congress should focus on continued support of this important environmental undertaking and to further recognize that our water

96

security depends upon the healthy environment and reliable water

supply and good quality water.

The legislation I introduced undertakes that broad perspective.

No specific projects are authorized and it leaves the state and Federal agencies working in close consultation with the public and

local stake holders to develop the governing structure to assure

proper balance among all competing water interests. I emphasize

that a balanced approach is necessary.

We must provide to the environment an enhanced ecosystem

while also working to honor contracts of water users and insure a

water supply for every Californian who depends upon a clean, reliable water supply. To achieve these goals we need to carefully balance the use of existing water and serve and recycle that water and

look for ways to augment the supply of water.

That’s the heart of what I believe and it’s embodied in

H.R. 1985, the Western Water Security Enhancement Act. We

must stop thinking in a fashion that pits the environment against

all other factors. The mentality that if you increase water supply

and quality, it must be at the expense of the environment is detrimental to working constructively on water issues in the West.

When water supply and quality are improved, the environment is

benefitted by this additional water. When the environment is benefitted, water supply and quality are increased. With California’s

water security in the lurch we must take this approach to the situation, as the CalFed program attempts to do and this bill certainly

assures.

And with that I’d like to ask my good friend, and our host this

morning here in Modesto, Gary Condit to have his opening statement.

The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power

The future of California depends on the future of California’s Water Security. Everyone that has taken the time to come here, and certainly those that have agreed

to provide testimony for us today, understand the importance of water availability,

reliability and supply to our well-being, our environment, and to this state and our

country. We have convened this Hearing as an opportunity to listen to the perspectives of those closest to the issues, here in California.

The important work of addressing California’s Water Security has a strong foundation in the CALFED Bay–Delta Program, and the Record of Decision that was released by that program in August of 2000. This program contains a balanced, holistic approach to dealing with Water Security in the Bay–Delta area, and the impacts

on water issues across the state and West. As some of you already know, I have

introduced legislation to assure that this important program continues to progress

from the formative stage to grow into the strong, cohesive and balanced program

that is needed into the distant future. As Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I believe Congress should focus on our continued support of this important environmental undertaking, and to further recognize that our water security

depends upon a healthy environment, a reliable water supply, and good quality

water. The legislation I introduced with more than half of my California colleagues

takes that broad perspective. No specific projects are authorized and it leaves to

State and Federal agencies, working in close consultation with the public and local

stakeholders, to develop the governing structure to assure proper balance amongst

all competing water interests.

I would emphasize that a balanced approach is necessary. We must provide for

the environment and enhance ecosystems, while also working to honor contracts of

water users, and assure a water supply for every Californian who depends on a

clean, reliable water supply. To achieve these goals, we need to carefully balance

the use of existing water, conserve and recycle that water, and also look for ways

97

to augment the supply of water. That is at the heart of what I believe, and it is

embodied in H.R. 1985, ‘‘Western Water Security Enhancement Act’’, which I have

introduced in Congress. This bill clarifies that the Governance Board, in carrying

forward the CALFED program, should consider economic/social and ecosystem restoration as coequal objectives. In fact, in the short term, while the stakeholder developed Governance Board is being formulated, it ensures that equal funding is provided for assuring a reliable water supply and for environmental benefits.

We must stop thinking in a fashion that pits the environment against all other

factors. The mentality that if you increase water supply and quality it must be at

the expense of the environment is detrimental to working constructively on water

issues in the West. When water supply and quality are improved, the environment

is benefitted by this additional water. When the environment is benefitted, water

supply and quality are increased. With California’s water security in the lurch, we

must take a holistic approach to the situation, as the CALFED program attempts

to do and this bill assures.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY CONDIT, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome

all my colleagues to the City of Modesto. We’re honored to have all

of you here today and we’re very proud of this facility and if you

get out today, you’ll see some of the renewal, redevelopment of the

downtown area. We’re very excited and very proud of that.

I’m pleased that the Chairman selected Modesto. This area illustrates tremendous benefit of water security. It’s no surprise to

some of us who are from the Central Valley and the foothills that

water is the lifeblood of agriculture.

Several weeks ago I and all the members sitting up here today

and several other members in the House of Representatives introduced the Water Enhancement Security Act. This bill is balanced

and comprehensive. Let me underscore balance is the cornerstone

of this bill. It links progress of water supply and water quality with

the progress on the environment. The link puts agricultural cities

and environmental interests on equal footing. One interest cannot

advance without the other.

And as we discuss this today and as the Chairman takes these

hearings around the state, one of the things that we should continually remind ourselves is that we all have to get well together if

we’re going to be successful with water policy facing the State of

California. No one interest can get ahead of the other. That’s what

this bill does. That’s what all the people that are committed to do—

to work on it today are trying to do. That’s what our objective is,

to make sure that we all get well together as it relates to a solution

for water facing California.

We need to do this as quick as we possibly can. CalFed’s been

hanging around a long time. It’s time we begin to put some meat

on the bones. This is, I think, a major effort and I commend the

Chairman, Mr. Calvert, who has taken sort of the bull by the horns

and move this thing in a very pro-aggressive way.

Once again, welcome to all the members here today.

Mr. CALVERT. I’d like to add to that that Gary and I have worked

very closely putting this bill together as well as all the members

here on the dais today. Obviously they are all very wise people.

Any other opening statements?

98

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, as soon as I learn how to use this microphone. I guess I don’t have to pull a switch or anything.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for all your work in putting this bill

together. As Mr. Condit had mentioned, it is a good, balanced approach to California’s water needs, and I also want to thank my

friend Vern Moss from Madera County for coming here to testify.

You’ll be hearing his wisdom here very shortly. He’s a good man

and wise man.

I do want to mention when CVPIA was passed many, many years

ago it really made water a scarce source in the state. And since

then I think that we have just not had enough water to meet

needs. I’m really concerned about a bill that does—at least in this

time of water shortage—that doesn’t put urban and ag water uses

at least ahead of the environment until we get more supply to it

all. I think this water shortage is just going to be as serious as the

electricity crisis if we don’t do something about it soon enough.

Until we get water supply that can meet all the needs of the

state, I just think that human beings need to come first and then

we can take care of everybody else just a little bit later. I think this

bill does that. That’s why it’s been my concern on reliability until

we get some long-term water supply in, not for a specific water

agency in a particular part of the state, but for all urban and ag

users in California until we get supply on that can take care of all

the water needs in our state. So I applaud the Chairman for putting a bill together that does that.

I also want to thank Senator Feinstein for her work for putting

together a similar bill on her side and look forward to the testimony today.

Mr. CALVERT. Any other statements?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, I just want to thank you, Mr. Calvert, for holding this hearing. As someone who represents maybe a part of the

state that has been most negatively impacted by the reduction in

the supplies of water, obviously this legislation is something that

holds some promise to how we can move forward with increasing

the certainty of the supplies that are delivered to the south of the

Delta and also insuring that we can move forward in a manner

where the Federal Government will step up with its commitment

financially and otherwise to meet not only the water supply demands of the State of California, but also are able to provide for

some of the environmental investments that are going to be needed.

I think what all of us are very much aware of and I hope the

people who are going to be engaged in the legislative process and

some of the people that are testifying here, anyone can kill a piece

of legislation that we’re dealing with in Congress. I would hope as

we’re moving forward here that everyone would maintain a commitment to be constructive. And hopefully throughout this hearing,

99

those people who have some questions or concerns about the legislation would go beyond just voicing their opposition, but identify

remedies that would allow us to put together a compromise that

can meet the objectives of this legislation which I think all of us

would agree are sound and responsible.

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Ms. Napolitano.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I echo the sentiments of all my colleagues and I tell you this is a truly bipartisan bill. When I was

in state legislature and—to me this is one of the first pieces of legislation that we have been able to set on the table and actually formulate areas of concern and their inclusion into a bill, so especially

my charge is municipalities. Those are the ones that are more affected in my area. That’s all I have. I have very little ag, almost

none.

So the assistance to the munis is very critical and the Chairman

has been very open about the process, so we’re all hoping that we

get solutions, not only as my colleague Dooley is indicating is the

objections, but what would be the solutions to be able to have everybody have a piece of that pie that we all want to formulate and

make sure that benefits all of California.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Also, I’d like to read one paragraph

from a letter from Senator Feinstein.

The bill—this is her. ‘‘The bill I introduced into the Senate brings

on line ecosystem protection, water storage in a balanced and concurrent way. I will not support authorizing legislation and appropriations that do not protect the environment and increase

California’s water supply.’’. She indicates that we’re doing the same thing on the House side,

so we appreciate her support.

Mr. CALVERT. Our first panel is Dr. Marcia Sablan, City Council

Member, City of Firebaugh, and Mr. Vern D. Moss, Supervisor of

Madera County. If you would please step up and take our witness

stand here, I guess.

Let me explain a little rule. We have these little lights. We’re on

a 5-minute rule to make sure we have plenty of time for questions.

The green light indicates that obviously you have time. The yellow

light indicates you have 1 minute remaining. The red light means

the 5 minutes expired. We try to stay in that as much as possible

in order to have time for questions.

With that, Doctor, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF MARCIA SABLAN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER,

CITY OF FIREBAUGH

Dr.. SABLAN. Thank you, Congressman Calvert. I am honored to

have this opportunity to represent the citizens of the San Joaquin

Valley. I also echo the sentiments of the congressman here to

applaud you for this work that you have done to try to bring this

bill forward.

100

To give you a little bit of my background, I’m a Board Certified

Family Physician in practice in Firebaugh with my husband who’s

an internist. We were scholarship recipients of the National Health

Service Corp back in 1981 and when we finished our obligation, the

beauties of Firebaugh kept us there.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with Firebaugh, and I think

almost everybody here is, it’s a river town, a historic river town

along the San Joaquin River with a population today of 6,500 people. It was the headquarters for the Miller and Lux Ranch that

began valley irrigation, so I think it’s an important place to talk

about the history of valley irrigation.

It began a long time ago in the 1840’s as a ferry crossing when

the San Joaquin River was big enough to hold steam ships to come

down before the dams were placed.

A lot of my knowledge came—about the water issues came from

living there in Firebaugh but also from being a member of the

BDAC, the Bay-Delta Advisory Committee. I’ve also been a member of the Firebaugh City Council for—since 1983 and the mayor

for 10 years.

Most of our citizens like you know are dependent on agriculture

for their livelihood. We often think of the farmers in this equation,

but I would just like to represent today the farm workers, the service providers, the people that serve the farms.

In my medical practice, which is the thing I think I can bring

to this table, is the fact that our society depends on the health of

the environment, healthy economy. When the water supply can’t be

guaranteed and the layoffs start, it’s always the farm workers that

have the layoffs and suffering first. And that reflects in our society

health.

During the drought, for example, we saw a lot of the people that

had been farm managers, farm workers laid off and their health insurance was interrupted. Therefore, they have become dependent

on governmental systems. We’ve seen interruptions in treatment

for their diabetes, hypertension and other chronic diseases with

disastrous effects.

The town of Firebaugh wants to get ahead. The people want to

get ahead. Most of the town has become stabilized now. We don’t

really have as many migrant workers as before. There are citizens

now.

Our budget is dependent on the sales tax from the farm equipment sales. In the past the drought years have previewed for us

the inability of the cities to provide basic services. In fact, the City

of Mendota, our neighbor to the south, lost their police force during

the last drought and are now dependent on sheriff coverage.

What’s the progress that’s been made that we can look forward

to if the water bill is completed? We have in Firebaugh 400 new

low to moderate income homes that are almost completely owned

by farm workers. Those people are first time homeowners that have

moved in from the ranches, become productive citizens of our town.

Those are the people that are most vulnerable to water supply

changes.

The city has joined with five other groups in the West side of

Fresno County to farm the I-5 business development district, which

is a collaborative for economic growth. The city has been able to atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
101

tract two value-added tomato paste plants within the past 2 years.

Like the congressman stated, this is the lifeblood of our area.

Please consider the citizens of Firebaugh, the citizens of the West

side and the farm workers also as we look at these water bills.

Thank you.

The prepared statement of Dr. Sablan follows:]

Statement of Marcia E. Sablan, M.D., City Council Member, City of

Firebaugh, California

I would like to thank Congressman Calvert and the members of the Subcommittee

for giving me the opportunity to testify. I am grateful to Congressman Calvert for

spearheading this effort to obtain consensus for H.R. 1985 and addressing the difficult problem of water supply.

I am a Board Certified Family Physician in practice with my husband in

Firebaugh, California. We were both National Health Service Corp’s Scholarship recipients assigned to Firebaugh and have lived there for almost 20 years. Much of

my knowledge of complex water supply issues stem from my appointment to the Bay

Delta Advisory Committee. I have been a member of the Firebaugh City Council

since 1983 and Mayor for 10 years. I would briefly like to talk about the socioeconomic demographics of western Fresno County. Firebaugh is a historic river town

of 6,500 residents, located 50 miles west of Fresno. Firebaugh began as a ferry

crossing on the San Joaquin river (before the dam) and in the late 1800’s served

as the headquarters for the Miller & Lux Ranch, where Valley irrigation began.

Firebaugh and other west Valley cities (Mendota, San Joaquin) grew along with agriculture.

Most of Firebaugh’s citizens are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood:

farm workers, ranch foremen, mechanics, secretaries, farm equipment sales.

In my medical practice, we see and feel the effects of agricultural water supply.

When the water supply cannot be guaranteed and lay-offs start, the farmworkers

are the most vulnerable. Unemployment problems are reflected in society’s health.

Many workers have lost health insurance benefits, resulting in interruption of treatment for diabetes, hypertension and many other diseases that when left untreated,

can produce disastrous effects. Many have increased dependence on governmental

programs like Medi–Cal and welfare.

The budget of the City of Firebaugh is heavily dependent on sales tax from farm

equipment sales. The drought years of the past have previewed the decrease in the

ability of the cities to provide basic services. For example, the City of Mendota lost

its police force during the last long drought.

What progress has been made? Almost 400 new low and moderate housing units

have been developed over the past decade. Most of those have been purchased by

first time homeowners who previously lived in farm housing. This has stabilized the

population and allowed the city to increase services. Those advances would be the

first to be lost with a decrease in the agricultural water supply. Five cities on the

Westside joined together seven years ago to form the I–5 Business Development District, collaborating in regional economic development. The City of Firebaugh has

been able to attract two value added tomato factories from this.

California’s water supply affects everyone, but it is the lifeblood of the Valley’s

cities and their citizens.

Thank you, Congressman Calvert and Subcommittee members for your work in

introducing this bill to authorize the CalFed projects and continue California’s vision of a dependable water supply.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Doctor. Supervisor.

STATEMENT OF VERN D. MOSS, SUPERVISOR,

MADERA COUNTY

Mr. VERN MOSS. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) to the Subcommittee regarding California water security.

I’m the Chairman of the RCRC Water Committee, which is an

advisory body to our Board of Directors. RCRC is an organization

102

of 28 rural Northern California counties. We have over 140 elected

county supervisors in our membership. Our member counties include the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Trinity watersheds.

Collectively, our counties are the source areas for the San Francisco Bay-Delta’s water. It is from our membership area that over

80 percent of the water for the Delta comes. Our counties comprise

nearly 40 percent of the state’s land mass and hold significant

groundwater resources, over which the counties exercise regulatory

authority.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your Subcommittee staff for the hard work they have put into making this

a fix, and to help us out here, we on the ground, to fix the system

that we feel is broken.

The environment in the San Francisco Bay-Delta is broken. We

could spend endless and probably pointless hours pointing fingers

about who did what when to cause this problem. We must pass up

that temptation.

We must recognize that the water supply and water quality protections for the people of our state is also broken. That places our

economy and our very future at risk. We have a duty to not only

proclaim the problem, but to solve it.

Much of the situations regarding water supply and water quality

that the Subcommittee heard from witnesses during your field

hearings in Cerritos on June 18th are the same in the north state.

We support regional sustainability and investment in water resources. We believe that the Santa Ana watershed project and others like it in the south state are great projects. We in RCRC supported funding for these projects even though they were at the opposite end of the state. We also could do other similar large scale

projects in our areas. We just need the funding.

We support new functional surface storage projects. By functional we mean ones that supply water locally, as well as regionally, and that recognize California’s area of origin and watershed

of origin protections for our part of the state.

We support ecosystem restoration. However, you must recognize

that many of our counties are over 75 percent federally owned.

Therefore, additional land acquisitions for ecosystem restoration

must consider the economic consequences to the communities and

local governments.

The payment in lieu of taxes by the Federal Government is critical to our local government coffers in order to provide adequate

services.

We support groundwater storage projects, but we point out that

California law has spoken on the point of who may regulate that

resource, manage it, and maintain the resource in long-term, safe

yield. It is the counties.

We support a process that helps achieve these goals, but one that

leaves the decision making at the local level. The best ideas we

have found come from the people closest to the ground and who

have to live with the problem.

We know how to do the work. We know how to fix what’s broken.

Therefore, a decision making process that allows innovative, locally

supported solutions is the best one.

103

Calling in air strikes in Vietnam from Washington didn’t work

decades ago. Calling in project mandates from Washington to

California won’t work today. Local decisions made by accountable,

locally elected officials will produce sustained solutions.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer

any questions that you have.

The prepared statement of Vern Moss follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Vern D. Moss, Chair of the Water Committee,

Regional Council of Rural Counties

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) to the Subcommittee regarding California’s

Water Security.

I am the Chairman of the RCRC Water Committee, which is an advisory body to

our Board of Directors. RCRC is an organization of twenty-eight rural northern

California Counties. We have over one hundred and forty elected County Supervisors in our membership. Our member Counties include the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Trinity Watersheds. Collectively, our counties are the ‘‘source’’ areas

for the San Francisco Bay–Delta’s water. It is from our membership area, that over

eighty percent of the water for the Delta comes. Our Counties comprise nearly 40%

of the State’s landmass and hold significant ground water resources, over which the

Counties exercise regulatory authority.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your subcommittee staff for the

hard work they have put into trying to help those of us out here—on the ground—

to fix a system that is broken. The environment in the San Francisco Bay Delta is

broken. We could spend endless and probably pointless hours pointing fingers about

who did what when to cause this problem. We must move past that temptation.

We must recognize that the water supply and water quality protections for the

people of our state are also broken. That places our economy and our very future

at risk. We have a duty to not only proclaim this problem but to solve it.

Much of the situations regarding water supply and water quality that the subcommittee heard from witnesses during your field hearing in Cerritos on June 18

are the same in the north state.

We support regional sustainability and investment in water resources. We believe

that the Santa Ana Watershed Project and others like it in the south state are great

projects. We in RCRC supported funding for these projects even though they were

at the opposite end of the state. We also could do similar large-scale projects in our

areas. We just need the funding.

We support new functional surface storage projects. By functional, we mean ones

that supply water locally, as well as regionally, and that recognizes California’s

Area of Origin and Watershed of Origin protections for our part of the state.

We support ecosystem restoration. However, you must recognize that many of our

Counties are over 75% federally owned. Therefore, additional land acquisitions for

ecosystem restoration must consider the economic consequences to communities and

local governments. The Payment of In Lieu Taxes by the Federal Government is

critical to our local government coffers in order to provide adequate services.

We support ground water storage projects, but we point out that California law

has spoken on the point of who may regulate that resource, manage it, and maintain the resource in long-term safe yield. It is the Counties.

We support a process that helps achieve these goals, but one that leaves the decision making at the local level. The best ideas we have found come from the people

closest to the ground and who have to live with the problem. We know how to do

the work. We know how to fix what’s broken. Therefore, a decision making process

that allows an innovative, locally supported solution is the best one.

Calling in air strikes in Vietnam from Washington didn’t work decades ago. Calling in project mandates from Washington to California won’t work today. Local decisions made by accountable, locally elected, officials will produce sustainable solutions.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I will be very happy to answer any

questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Supervisor. I appreciate both of your

testimony.

104

I first want to reiterate that the local decision-making process is

an extremely important part of H.R. 1985 and certainly RCRC’s

played an important role in making sure that we brought that to

the attention of both state and local officials.

As you are aware, we have a portion of the bill that in the governance—that would allow for the stake holders, obviously the

locals, the people in here in the state to be a part of that process

in determining where projects should be or should not be built and

because we don’t predetermine, in spite of what some people may

have said, whether or not certain projects should be completed or

not, we think that you all should be a part of that process and go

through a process of regular order.

Would you like to further explain surface storage projects that

potentially could be up in the—your part of the state? I know that

Mr. Herger has been very helpful in talking about various things

up in your area. He’s done a very good job, by the way, for your

region.

Mr. VERN MOSS. Maybe I could just talk a little bit about the

water supply within the area, if that would be all right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Sure.

Mr. VERN MOSS. The primary challenge for our area is to maintain a water supply for our agriculturally based economy, while increasing supplies for urban growth occurring within our areas. We

also must maintain or improve our water quality to meet the new

standards. This sometimes is very difficult. It sounds like it’s easy,

but when you deal with a delivery system in some cases that was

created during—shortly after the gold rush, it makes it rather difficult.

Water transfers are a challenge for most of our counties. If water

is treated as a commodity which can be bought and sold and transferred into private sector as if it were a share of stock, then

California agriculture in our part of the state will end. We

shouldn’t rush to deregulate water and end up with a situation

similar to where we find ourselves in electricity.

Linked to transfers is the fact that the only entity in California

which can use the regulatory power it holds to remove water’s

value and purchase it for use elsewhere is the Federal Government

and its agencies within the Department of Interior of Commerce.

The specter of the Federal treasury being used to create willing

sellers is frightening. Thus, the so-called assurance that only willing sellers would sell water is not a real protection.

Much of our membership area’s population grows at the same annual rate as the urban areas of the state. However, we have fewer

options to develop new water supplies to meet that demand. For

example, in much of the foothill and mountainous areas of the

north state there are virtually no opportunities for new surface

storage projects except on live streams. Thus, we must have the

flexibility to increase the capacity of some reservoirs and build new

reservoirs if alternatives should be taken off the table until it has

undergone a complete analysis with review by Congress.

Groundwater resources in some areas of the north can be managed to create a sustained yield which is measurable and safe. In

other areas there is no true groundwater basin. The groundwater,

105

where it exists, is located in small fractures within the geologic

strata far below the surface. There are, as yet, no proven methods

to even determine safe yield in those areas. In other areas, the

groundwater basin is either impaired through low water quality or

is in overdraft. Nevertheless, those resources are protected and secured to the overlying land through state and local laws.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Doctor, do you want to also expand a little bit on water shortage

affect upon farm worker housing and certainly in the food processing business, uses a substantial amount of water also. I know

that’s a big industry in your area.

Dr. SABLAN. Yes, thank you. I think what I would just like to emphasize, Congressman, is that farming is about planning. People

have to have a dependable supply. They have to know the amount

of water that they are going to get before they are willing to make

the investment into planting a field for that year. The farm workers are left waiting for that decision every year.

Most people work for a farm labor contractor and that contractor

works hard to get positions for their people on different ranches

that are planted. And those water decisions are what we see holding up the progress. Sometimes the decisions come too late for the

farmer to work and to plant that field and to hire his people. People move on to different places.

We’ve seen a new trend even in small towns like Firebaugh and

Mendota that people are taking off for the Midwest when these announcements come in the middle of the winter that there won’t be

farm water. People don’t know how to put those things—I don’t

think we know how to put those things into perspective when it

says in the paper that they are going to have a 25 percent water

supply for this year. What does that mean? Should I wait around

and see if I can get a job in April or go to Nebraska, go someplace

else and destroy the fabric of the society that’s being built around

that area.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. CONDIT. First of all, let me thank both of the witnesses and

thank them for the work they do on both of their committees. I was

on the city council and county of supervisors. I know how difficult

that job is. I’m not sure it’s as hard as the one I’ve got today, but

it’s tough.

First of all, Doctor, let me commend you and your husband for

the fine work you do in Firebaugh with farm workers and the

farmers. You do a great service to the people of that area and I

know they are appreciative of it. I’m certainly appreciative of it as

well.

I also want to acknowledge, you’ve had a big role in helping influence the State of California, particularly Governor Davis, to be

more aggressive and visionary in a water stand for California.

You’ve made presentations before him and I know that you impacted him in his view of what it is we should be doing and I want

to thank you for doing that. You did that on all of our behalf.

The question I have is similar to Congressman Calvert’s question. We’ve had several years of chronic shortage in the valley.

Could you describe sort of the impact of that when you have a

106

water shortage on the community, on the economic base of the community, what actually happens to that community.

And if that continues, if we have a shortage every year and announce shortage in advance on the West side, what will actually

happen to Firebaugh from your point of view?

Dr. SABLAN. Thank you. Well, the thing that interests me the

most probably is the city budget. We have, like I mentioned, our

sales tax based on farm equipment sales. I think that’s the first

weather vane that shows us that the economy is not right when the

farm sales go down. The people that work in that industry represent our town, pay our taxes, provides our police force, provide

our fire protection. That’s really—the property value in the City of

Firebaugh is very low in comparison to the sales tax revenue.

That’s our big use.

But I think the more important thing that I see on a daily basis,

Congressman Condit, is the people’s view of their future. We have

people that are—a lot of them are first generation Americans that

want to see progress, want to send their kids to school. They do it

through farm work. Those of us that have paid college tuition know

how hard that is and imagine doing that on a farm worker’s salary

and not knowing whether we’re going to have a job next year or

not or how long we are going to work.

Just a little example of how things change. Most women work in

the spring chopping cotton, cleaning weeds from the cotton fields.

This year one farmer decided because of the economy not to plant

cotton and the cotton he did plant he used herbicide to clean the

weeds with instead.

I heard that same complaint five times in 1 day in the office that

I’m not going to work this year because of that certain farmer’s not

planting. That’s—people don’t have bank accounts. They are pretty

much living from month to month. Those are the people that are

very vulnerable in that type of thing.

I think—I can’t emphasize enough the dependability, the planning that has to go into farming. Everybody else is a spin-off and

dependent on that, but the farmer is the one that needs to make

the investment.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good morning, Dr. Sablan. I appreciate your

testimony. I do have a question.

Can you give me an idea what the current rate of unemployment

is in Firebaugh?

Dr. SABLAN. Yes. It’s in the 20’s, 20 percent. Probably Firebaugh

may be—Congressman, I don’t know, may be a little bit better off

than some of the other communities because we have more ranch

owners living in Firebaugh. Mendota which is just south of us has

in the 40’s their unemployment rate and that would probably be

closer to most of the rates in some of the towns.

Mr. RADANOVICH. As you know, when the state kind of

reprioritized its water needs as a result of the CVPIA Act that was

passed in 1992, I think it was, provided then historic water

shortages to your part of the state. In particular the West side’s

water district, which was under contract, and then typically got

anywhere between 25 to 45 percent of their contracts supply.

107

As a result of that, there’s been attempts to get that water supply back up to 100 percent of contract, but there’s also been discussion about retiring lands, somewhere up to about 200,000 acres in

that area due to the antifill contracts and also a refusal to open

the drains. There’s land that has become unfarmable with salt.

What would be the consequences of Firebaugh if there would be

an eventual buy out of that large amount of land in your part of

the state?

Dr. SABLAN. Thank you. Well, of course, it would affect everything that I talked about. I think it’s really important for us to remember that we need to replace that somehow. And as I mentioned, we have the two tomato paste plants going on in Firebaugh

now.

I would love to see in an agreement that’s made like that reparations, so to speak, to the citizens of that area, an investment in

value-added agriculture in jobs that can take the place of those

things. We have enough product in that area and that’s what we’ve

produced, but typically the western part of the Fresno County

hasn’t added anything to that product and that’s what I would be

asking to see.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would you venture to say what the unemployment rate might be if there’s a significant supply of water in the

area, closer to 100 percent of contract?

Dr. SABLAN. Probably be closer to the rest of the state then in

the 10 percent range I would be guessing. You know, you probably

know that farm workers have a very hard job and sometimes peoples in the second generation don’t want to do that job anymore

and that’s why the city council, we’ve been trying very hard to have

other diversified—still based on agriculture. Like I mentioned, we

have plenty of product there, but we don’t have the investment in

the factories and things we need to increase the value added.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Moss.

Mr. VERN MOSS. Good morning, Congressman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you for being here. Can you give me an

idea at least in Madera County, and you’re welcome to go into the

outlying areas, too, some of the water projects that have been there

historically, some that may have been thought of recently that

might be part of a statewide plan to increase water to the State

of California?

Mr. VERN MOSS. There’s actually two projects under consideration right now. One in a permitting process which is commonly referred to as the Madera Ranch Project or we call it the Old Pico

Ranch, which would accommodate underground storage and aquifer

of up to around 400,000 acre feet. We are—right now we are providing a permit so that the individual can have an opportunity to

apply. We want to be sure that the science will work.

That particular ground is at 13,600 acres and it has not too far

to move from there to the San Joaquin River. Much of what we’re

doing right now is dependent upon where we stand with the river

and the restoration projects.

Second item, very quickly, there’s a study proposed as part of a

Prop 13 grant to study a groundwater banking project and what

they refer to as gravity four and it’s actually in the (phonetic) Elisa

108

Water District. That’s just in its infancy and we don’t know quite

where that’s going to go.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And then the discussion has been raising

Friant Dam in San Joaquin as part of the CalFed project here.

Has there been much discussion regarding Rogers Crossing on

the Kings River? That’s not in your watershed.

Mr. VERN MOSS. I am aware that there is talk of a four foot increase to Friant to increase capacity. The last I heard that nothing

had gone forward on that. I know that there was more progress on

Shasta than on Friant.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Dooley.

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. Dr. Sablan, it’s good to see you here.

I compliment you on the work that you’ve done in terms of providing not only health care for a lot of the farm worker families in

that region, as well as the I-5 corridor in the work that you’ve done

there. We’re seeing some real benefits in terms of the ability to

meet some of the real social and human costs that are affected

there.

I guess one of the areas of this legislation that has received some

attention deals with the assurances, and that is the portion which

would try to insure that we would provide 70 percent of contracted

water supply to contractors south of the Delta, which would obviously encompass the I-5 corridor.

I guess from your perspective, just counting the impact that it

would have to your local economy, if you would have that certainty

in a normal year, that 70 percent of deliveries.

Dr. SABLAN. Yes, of course, the farmers would be very, very

happy with that. But I think, Congressman, like you mentioned, as

far as business investment, I think that’s the thing the people look

at. What’s the future of building homes in that area? What’s the

future of building tomato paste plants in that area, if it’s going to

be every single year that same uncertainty?

So I think that you are saying it exactly correctly that that’s the

thing that would give us the foundation to look for this type of economic development if we had that assurance that the farming industry would have its supply that’s needed.

Mr. DOOLEY. Supervisor Moss, that provision obviously has a

greater impact on Fresno County and Madera County.

Is that a provision that you would also support?

Mr. VERN MOSS. Would you restate it?

Mr. DOOLEY. The portion of the bill that deals with trying—that

says that in normal years, which we have a criteria of normal rainfall years, that we would commit to try to provide 70 percent of

water deliveries south of the Delta, with the provision that we

wouldn’t harm any other water user’s interest.

Mr. VERN MOSS. Well, I think I’d support that, yes, Congressman.

Mr. DOOLEY. The other significant provision in the legislation

deals with the investigation of potential water storage, both above

ground as well as underground. And I was unclear in terms of the

position of the Board of Supervisors in Madera County on studies

that would investigate the potential of gravity four, is this—does

109

the board have a position on that? Are you supportive of a study

going forward to understand the full potential of that?

Mr. VERN MOSS. At this particular point in time, the board does

not have a position. It is agendized for Tuesday, item four on the

agenda, and it will come from the Water Oversight Committee

without recommendation just for consideration.

Mr. DOOLEY. Do you personally have a position on that?

Mr. VERN MOSS. I have not taken a position until I hear what

testimony is going to be given. I have talked to Mr. Halcan (phonetic) in fact as late as yesterday to talk about some of the prospects of that and he was asking me the same question. I said until

it comes before the board, I have not taken a position.

Mr. DOOLEY. Just for the record, someone who represents—I represent part of Kern County, too, and we were able to establish the

Kern County water basin has the potential now to store a million

acre feet of what we have almost filled up.

In a year such as this where we only are seeing about 45 percent

of Federal deliveries and 25 percent of state deliveries, this has

been one of the best investments we have made. Hopefully Madera

County, as they look forward to this, can spend some time understanding the benefits that were accrued in Kern County both with

the project on the Kern River or Kern Water Bank as well as some

of the work that the syntropic irrigation has done just a little bit

further north of there.

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir.

I’m very impressed, Dr. Sablan, by some of your background.

Coming from a municipal citizen or a government spot before, I understand some of the issues that you’re faced with. It is quite a difference between the metro area that I come from to the area that

you represent and I’m sure that a lot of the issues are very much

the same.

One of the questions that I would like to know whether or not

you have underground water storage. Have you looked at what is

happening to your area due to the pesticides that might affect your

clients, your patients, and how does the city provide for cyclical

drought delivery of water surfaces to your community? I’m not just

talking farming. I’m talking about the residents.

Dr. SABLAN. Thank you. The City of Firebaugh has a good water

supply underneath the clayed levels. We haven’t had that problem

with our own water supply. We don’t use—unlike some of the other

cities in the area, we’ve been lucky enough to have only well water

to be used. Dos Palos north of us I believe is using surface water

and enters exactly into the problems that you’re talking about.

I think our position on the San Joaquin River affords us to

have—we don’t use San Joaquin River water, but affords us the replenishment of the wells that we’ve used traditionally and so our

city water supply is in very good condition and has never, to my

knowledge, been contaminated with pesticides.

Surface water is another whole complete problem. I think I don’t

understand this completely, but I think it has to do with the clay

layer in that area.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The filters.

110

Dr. SABLAN. Yes, filters the water. We’re in a good position as

far as that is what I’m told.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You have no problems with your wells at all?

Dr. SABLAN. We haven’t to this moment had one. We have five

active wells right now. It sounds like a small amount, but that’s

enough to provide. And we also have room for expansion.

That was one of the parts that is very difficult in the I-5 business

development corridor is to provide water services. Every imaginative tomato paste plant uses a lot of water. That’s been an important infrastructure project that the Federal and state government

has helped to provide that area is to provide water infrastructure.

Right now fortunately enough we have the water supply to attract

other industries.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are you at any point utilizing or providing recycled water?

Dr. SABLAN. Yes. One of the tomato paste plants that we have,

the Tomatec is the name it, we actually use that water for irrigation on the city’s—the citizens refer to it as a sewer farm. It’s not

really a sewer farm. It’s the land that was bought along with the

sewer farm.

So that tomato washing water is used for irrigation of an alfalfa

field. Interestingly enough, what came out of that was that that

land has very little need for any type of fertilizer, pesticides because of that—the products that come—the natural products that

come off the tomato. It’s been an interesting project.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very good. Mr. Moss, is there any areas that

you have an issue with, the recycling of water or putting wells back

into service that have been contaminated or closed?

Mr. VERN MOSS. We have no problem with the contaminated

wells. I would make a comment, if it’s appropriate. The concerns

that local residents have had on the Madera Ranch Project has

more to do with the aquifer and whether or not the science will

work on it. That’s why it’s rather important that we pursue a permitting process, so that we’re sure that it doesn’t do damage to adjacent lands.

The concern of bringing 400,000 acres into an area for storage

during wet season could very well cause a flow outward rather

than downward and it’s surrounded by permanent crops of fruit

trees, which would be damaged. So we’re waiting to see what the

science is to see if it works for us.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the problems that we’re beginning to

face is that EPA is going to be mandating sanitation districts to

bring forth treatment to recycle water. That is going to mean additional establishment of treatment plants for the fourth treatment,

which will be in the billions of dollars and you need to—one of the

things that I would want to see happen is that we can address that

through this bill so that if it does happen, and we are mandated

in California, that is, that we have the ability to assist municipalities that have treatment plants, be able to utilize that—the bill to

assist in building or addressing the needs of that fourth treatment

because if we’re going to have to cut our water consumption by the

year 2015, then we need to be able to make good use of the recycled

water for everybody.

Thank you, sir.

111

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And I want to thank both of you for

your excellent testimony and answering our questions. We appreciate your coming out here on a beautiful Saturday morning. With

that we’ll be introducing our next panel.

Our next panel—we’re setting up the chairs. I think we’re going

to be splitting between the two areas here—is Mr. David Guy, the

Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association;

Mr. Tom Birmingham, the General Manager, General Counsel for

the Westlands Water District; Mr. Richard Moss, General Manager

of the Friant Water Users Authority; Mr. Dan Nelson, General

Manager of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority; Mr.

Chris White, General Manager, Central California Irrigation

District, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors; and Mr. John

Herrick, General Manager of South Delta Water Agency.

Mr. Guy, you may begin. I think you may have heard the 5-

minute rule. Especially a panel of this size, please try to stay within the 5-minute rule. You may begin.

STATEMENT OF DAVID GUY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION

Mr. GUY. Thank you, Chairman Calvert. Members of the delegation, thank you for coming to Modesto today and the great Central

Valley. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to provide

a perspective on the northern part of the great Central Valley, the

Sacramento Valley, and some of the great things that are going on

in the Sacramento Valley.

I’m the executive director for the Northern California Water Association. We represent about 70 water suppliers throughout the

Sacramento Valley irrigating about 850,000 acres.

You know about a lot of the great things that have gone on in

the Sacramento Valley. I think all of you have been up there about

one time or another and seen the progress that we have made to

achieve water reliability and to provide benefits for the ecosystem

and to protect the endangered fish in the Sacramento Valley as

well as provide water for refuges.

Today I’d like to talk about an innovative program for the Sacramento Valley, which I believe is a very significant development

and is really a new way of doing business in California.

I think you all are generally aware that in the last year we have

been working with a lot of water users from throughout the state

and one of the points that brought us together was what could

have been a very ugly water rights proceeding before the State

Water Resources Control Board. And rather than going to a proceeding where we killed each other, we decided to try to work together and to try to increase the water security for folks not only

in the Sacramento Valley, but also in the remainder of the Central

Valley, in Southern California and the Central Coast. What came

out of this is what we are now calling the Sacramento Valley Water

Management Agreement.

What that does is really give rise to this idea of integrated water

management in the Sacramento Valley. That includes a range of

things. It includes, of course, fish passage improvements, which

you’re generally aware of, water use efficiency. It includes new

offstream storage at Sites Reservoir, an enlarged Shasta reservoir.

112

It talks about flood protection. It talks about environmental protection and a whole range of programs in an integrated manner.

We believe and we think we’re going to be able to show here over

the next several years that if we can manage the system in the

Sacramento Valley in an integrated manner, that we will foremost,

because of course, that is in our interest, we are going to be able

to provide water security for people within the Sacramento Valley

and for the environment and the refuges within the Sacramento

Valley. And at the same time this will help improve the water supplies and the water quality in the Bay-Delta and that, of course,

will benefit everybody in the rest of the state.

We are now developing work plans through this process to make

this real and to try to—to flush this out a little bit and put it onto

paper to show exactly what we mean. I think it’s a very significant

development.

We have a tremendous partnership, not only with the Bureau of

Reclamation, DWR, in this process with a lot of the folks sitting

around the dais right now, from again the San Joaquin Valley,

from Central Coast and Southern California, as well as the Delta.

So we are very much looking forward to working in that integrated program. I think there’s three things that I would like to

suggest that I think are going to be important to make this integrated program a reality. I’ll just touch on those very briefly.

The first is that I think this idea of empowering regional solutions is going to be critical. There’s been a lot of discussion about

regional solutions and I think this is a classic example of an opportunity to empower regional and local solutions to water in

California. Of course, that’s where the success has always been in

California and this is no different.

The second thing, of course, is I think we need to make major

investments in infrastructure and that I think goes without saying.

If we’re going to have this integrated program, we’re going to need

to have the investments that are necessary to move that program

forward.

And then the third and the final piece of this I believe is we’re

going to need to have the regulatory streamlining and reform that

I believe is necessary to put a program of this magnitude together

and to be able to put all the pieces together in a coordinated and

integrated fashion, so that we can in fact achieve all the multiple

benefits we’ve talked about for the Sacramento Valley, for the environment, and for the water users in the rest of the state.

I want to commend you in H.R. 1985, all of you in your efforts

to move this forward. I believe it’s an excellent bill. We really look

forward to working with you to make this bill a reality and thank

you for your efforts and time you’ve been spending in the Central

Valley and hope you’ll continue to work with us in the Sacramento

Valley to make our integrated program a reality.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guy follows:]

Statement of David J. Guy, Executive Director, Northern California Water

Association

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Guy. I am

the Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association (NCWA).

NCWA is a geographically diverse organization, extending from California’s Coast

Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and nearly 180 miles from Redding to SacVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
113

ramento. Our members rely on the waters of the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba and

American Rivers, smaller tributaries and groundwater to irrigate nearly 850,000

acres that produce every type of food and fiber grown in the region. Many of our

members also provide water supplies to state and federal wildlife refuges, and much

of this land serves as important seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl,

shorebirds and other wildlife.

We welcome the opportunity to provide the Northern California perspective on

water security and to present both the opportunities and challenges we now face.

The Subcommittee’s interest in California water security is appropriate and very

timely given the importance of a successful resolution to the environmental and

water supply problems in the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay (Bay–Delta). The Bay–Delta is a tremendous economic and environmental

resource to California and the nation, and there is much at stake in how we implement the numerous ecosystem restoration and water management actions.

For many years, the Sacramento Valley (the northern half of the Great Central

Valley) has been targeted as the primary source of water to meet California’s burgeoning demands. Water users and landowners in the Sacramento Valley have also

faced restrictions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and other environmental restrictions. These actions have posed many challenges for Northern California water users and their

ability to provide secure water supplies for the farms, cities and wildlife refuges in

Northern California. Rather than focus on these challenges (which we could do in

painstaking detail), we believe it is more constructive to focus on the exciting solutions that are currently being advanced by and from within the Sacramento Valley.

These projects or programs, if properly implemented, will go a long way to provide

water security not only for Northern California, but for other regions in California

as well.

AN INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SACRAMENTO

VALLEY WILL IMPROVE WATER SUPPLY, QUALITY AND RELIABILITY

Northern California water users have committed to help improve water supply reliability, water quality and environmental benefits. The Sacramento Valley’s initiative and effort to help protect salmon and other aquatic species is unprecedented

and is now recognized as one of the most exciting and progressive voluntary salmon

restoration efforts in the United States. Today, more than a dozen NCWA members,

representing over 500,000 acres of irrigable land, have either completed or are in

various stages of developing screens to prevent fish entrainment at their diversions.

Many NCWA members have also initiated far-reaching efforts to refurbish fish ladders, construct siphons, remove dams, create habitat conservation plans and implement other habitat improvement projects to enhance the environment, while at the

same time improving water supply reliability.

Additionally, NCWA and the Northern California water users have embarked on

an integrated water management program that has broad support from water suppliers and local governments throughout the Sacramento Valley. This integrated

program includes these fish passage improvements (fish screens and siphons),

groundwater management, evaluation of the Sites off-stream reservoir, flood protection, water use efficiency programs, potential expanded storage in Lake Shasta,

intra-regional water transfers and exchanges, and watershed management. (See attached map.)

During the past year this integrated program led to an unprecedented water

rights settlement among water users throughout California. This settlement, now

known as the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement, and the ensuing

integrated water management program, avoided the extremely contentious Phase 8

Bay–Delta water rights proceedings before the State Water Resources Control

Board. The parties to the agreement include NCWA, the Bureau of Reclamation

(BOR), the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the federal contractors in the

San Luis and Delta–Mendota Water Authority, the State Water Contractors, and

the Contra Costa Water District. This proceeding would have pitted these parties

from throughout the state against each other. This integrated program will now

serve as the heart of a regional strategy for the Sacramento Valley.

The Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement and integrated water

management program focus on meeting 100% of the water supply demands within

the Sacramento Valley during all year types, both now and into the future. Northern California water users believe that, once the full demands within the Sacramento Valley are met, this integrated program will help make water supplies

available for use in and beyond the Bay–Delta to meet water quality standards, and

provide for export water users in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, the

114

Central Coast, and as assets for the Environmental Water Account (EWA) and other

environmental programs.

The parties to the agreement will, during the next five months, prepare a joint

work plan for short-term Sacramento Valley water management projects to implement the agreement that will describe this integrated program in more detail. Work

plans on longer-term projects will follow.

SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS ARE NOW NECESSARY TO IMPROVE WATER SECURITY FOR THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND CALIFORNIA.

To improve water security for the Sacramento Valley, leadership is now critical

to empower regional solutions, provide for infrastructure throughout California and

streamline and reform the regulatory process to accomplish these goals. • Empower a Regional Solution For the Sacramento Valley

California history has shown that solutions to water problems in the state have

typically been successful at the local and regional level. Very few solutions fit every

part of our extremely diverse state. Put differently, there have been few instances

when a top-down, one-size-fits all, bureaucratic policy or law has helped the state

or has been implemented. Instead, California water users are now poised to advance

a series of regional solutions and local partnerships that will serve California’s needs for many years to come. The integrated program described above is an exciting example of a regional solution for the Sacramento Valley, but it can only be implemented with state and federal leadership empowering local interests to take the

actions necessary for these programs to succeed. Any bureaucratic efforts to impose

top-down solutions, like past efforts, are doomed to failure and have the potential

to destroy the tremendous progress that has been made on these regional solutions.

Like the Sacramento Valley integrated program described above, every regional

strategy will include the appropriate mix of infrastructure needs, storage, conveyance, water transfers and exchanges, fish passage improvements, water conservation and efficiency, groundwater management, flood protection, watershed management and environmental improvements. To fully empower these regional solutions

requires state and federal funding and the regulatory streamlining necessary to implement these programs.

• Provide for Infrastructure Needs in California

The California Business Roundtable has estimated that California must invest

$90 billion on infrastructure over the next ten years in order to meet the demands

of a state growing by nearly 600,000 people a year. Perhaps the most critical infrastructure elements include the ability to store, convey and better manage our water

resources on behalf of cities, farms, and fish and wildlife.

To provide for these water infrastructure needs will require an aggressive funding

program to facilitate and fully empower regional solutions. There is an important

role for both Congress and the state legislature to ensure that appropriate funding

is allocated in a manner that achieves noticeable results. It is also important that

the regional and local entities are accountable for using these funds to implement

the regional solutions in an effective and cost-efficient manner.

• Streamline and Reform the Regulatory Process

With nearly18 federal and state agencies under the respective executive branches

that dictate California water policy, it is critical to coordinate and ultimately

streamline the plethora of agencies with jurisdiction over water resources in

California.

The framework to create CALFED in June 1994 called for cooperation and collaboration between the federal and state agencies that oversee water in California.

It is essential that these agencies continue to work together in this manner. Over

the past 7 years, CALFED has evolved from a concept to streamline agency efforts

to a massive bureaucratic program. For CALFED to be successful as it transitions

from a planning program to an implementation agency, it must move from a topdown bureaucratic organization to an organization that facilitates and fosters a series of regional strategies with local control and governance. Most notably, it must

streamline the regulatory process to assure that these programs will be implemented. Specific examples include the facilitation of intra- regional water transfers

and exchanges and expedited permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and

Environmental Protection Agency.

Significantly, this means that CALFED and its member agencies will serve in a

more limited, albeit more effective role, to advance water and environmental policy

in the state. It is also means that CALFED will serve a critical role to coordinate

regional strategies to ensure that they fit together in a manner that provides statewide benefits, and also provide a broad-based governance strategy and oversight capability to ensure appropriate and efficient implementation of all CALFED program

elements.

115

[An attachment to Mr. Guy’s statement follows:]

116

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Guy.

Mr. Birmingham.

STATEMENT OF TOM BIRMINGHAM, GENERAL MANAGER/

GENERAL COUNSEL, WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,

good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today to discuss an issue which is of vital importance to the State

of California.

At the outset thank you for introducing H.R. 1985. Westlands

strongly supports this legislation and is grateful for the leadership

that each of you has demonstrated through the introduction of this

bill. It is apparent from the bill that you and your staff worked

hard to develop legislation that would insure that the CalFed program is implemented in a balanced, innovative manner that links

progress on environmental restoration and enhancement with

progress on water supply and water qualities improvements.

Westland’s Water District serves irrigation water to 605,000

acres of land on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley and Fresno and Kings counties. The demand for irrigation water in

Westlands is 1.4 million acre-feet per year.

Westlands is one of the most fertile, productive and diversified

farming regions in the nation. Westlands farmers produce over 50

different crops worth more than a billion dollars. Like every other

region of the area west the ability of our farmers to produce crops

and generate economic activity depends upon the availability of an

adequate reliable source of water.

Historically demand in Westlands has been satisfied through the

use of groundwater, water made available from the Central Valley

Project pursuant to contracts with the United States for the delivery of 1.5 million acre feet and annual water transfers.

Prior to 1981 our water supplies were reduced only once in the

CVP, during the 1977 drought period, 1977 being the driest period

in California on record. However, in 1991 a new era of project operations began.

In 1991, the winter-Chinook salmon was listed as a threatened

species and new limitations were imposed on operation of the Central Valley Project. In 1992, the Delta smelt was listed as a threatened species and again new limitations were imposed on the operations of the CVP. In 1992 the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act was enacted.

Although one of the purposes of this act was to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for the Central Valley uses

of water, the act has been implemented in a way that has added

to the environment. This water was taken away from ranches,

farmers and businesses that relied upon its availability for decades.

Moreover, the entire burden of the water supply reductions resulting from implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act have been borne entirely by the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. For this reason the reliability of water supplies for agricultural water users on the West side of the valley has gone from

92 percent on average in 1991 to less than 50 percent today.

The impact of Implementing CVPIA is best demonstrated by the

allocations to contractors last year, the sixth year of the wettest

117

period on record in California. Last year CVP contractors south of

the Delta received only 65 percent allocation notwithstanding the

optimum water supply conditions that existed in this state.

Governor Gray Davis and former Secretary Bruce Babbitt recognized the disproportionate nature of these actions in June 2000

when they signed the document entitled, ‘‘California’s Water Future, A Framework For Action.’’ The framework accurately noted

that agricultural water contractors had been disproportionately affected by regulatory actions.

The key commitment in the Framework for Action was a provision that in normal years south-of-Delta Central Valley agricultural contractors increased water supplies from 60 to 70 percent.

Westlands and other San Joaquin Valley agricultural contractors

supported the framework based upon this commitment, but somehow between signing the Framework for Action in June 2000 and

the issuance of the Record of Decision in August 2000, that commitment became ambiguous.

In response to diminished water supplies from the project,

Westlands farmers have substantially modified their irrigation

techniques. First, unreasonable reliance has been placed upon

groundwater. For instance, last year farmers in Westlands extracted more than 337,000 acre feet of water for irrigation. This is

more than double the safe yield of the project. Excuse me, of the

groundwater basin.

In addition, farmers in Westlands have gone to more efficient

water irrigation techniques and today farmers in Westlands have

one of the highest seasonal efficiency applications in the region,

over 83 percent.

The loss of water for irrigation, as you’ve heard here today, also

means loss of jobs, both on farm jobs and jobs in the communities

that provide goods and services to farmers in Westlands. For instance, this year, Westlands estimates that because of inadequate

water supplies more than 70,000 acres will be fallowed. This represents a loss of 105 million dollars in crop values and a loss of 367

million dollars to the regional economy. But in human terms it

means a loss of more than 875 on farm jobs and an unknown number of jobs in the local communities.

As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the CalFed program has the potential to be a great benefit to the State of

California. Congress can help solve California’s water problem by

authorizing a CalFed program that will give equal priority to restoring Bay-Delta watersheds, restoring water supplies that have

been lost over the last decades and protecting and enhancing water

quality from municipal investment agencies.

In its present form H.R. 1985 will ensure that the CalFed program is implemented in a balanced manner. Westlands looks forward to working with the members of the Committee toward a passage of this important legislation.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions that

you might have.

The prepared statement of Mr. Birmingham follows:]

118

Statement of Thomas W. Birmingham, General Manager/General Counsel,

Westlands Water District

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: Good morning. I am Thomas Birmingham, General Manager/General Counsel of Westlands Water District, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss an issue of vital importance to the State of California, indeed, the nation.

At the outset, I would like to extend our appreciation for your introduction of

H.R. 1985, the Western Water Enhancement Security Act. Westlands strongly supports this legislation and is grateful for the leadership that you and your colleagues

have demonstrated through introduction of this bill. This legislation would ensure

that the CALFED Program is implemented in a balanced and innovative manner

that links progress on environmental restoration and enhancement with progress on

water supply and water quality improvements.

Particularly important to west side agricultural water users are the bill’s provisions ensuring a 70% allocation to south-of–Delta agricultural Central Valley Project

service contractors in normal years, increasing limits on pumping at the Harvey O.

Banks Pumping Plant to 8200 cubic feet per second pursuant to the Record of Decision, and providing direction on the management of the Environmental Water Account. Inclusion of these provisions in H.R. 1985 will help sustain agriculture in the

San Joaquin Valley, an industry that provides significant benefit to the state and

the nation.

Westlands Water District is a California water district that serves irrigation

water to a 605,000 acre area on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno

and Kings counties. The District averages 15 miles in width and is 70 miles long.

The demand for irrigation water in Westlands is 1.4 million acre-feet per year. Historically, that demand has been satisfied through the use of groundwater, water

made available to the District from the Central Valley Project under contracts with

the United States for the delivery of 1.15 million acre-feet, and annual transfers of

water from other water agencies.

Westlands is one of the most fertile, productive and diversified farming regions

in the nation. Rich soil, a good climate, and innovative farm management have

helped make the area served by Westlands one of the most productive farming areas

in the San Joaquin Valley and the nation. Westlands farmers produce over 50 different commercial fiber and food crops sold for the fresh, dry, canned or frozen food

markets; domestic and export. A list of the crops grown in the District last year and

the acres planted to each crop is attached hereto as Appendix A.

Westlands estimates that the value of crops produced by farmers in the District

exceeds $1 billion per year. Using a well-accepted economic assumption that every

$1 produced on-farm generates another $3.50 in the economy, Westlands farmers

produce nearly $3.5 billion in economic activity annually. Like every other region

of the arid west, the ability of our farmers to produce crops and generate this economic activity depends on the availability of an adequate, reliable source of water.

As indicated above, farmers in Westlands have relied on three sources of water:

(1) groundwater; (2) water made available to Westlands from the Central Valley

Project under its water service contracts with the United States; and (3) annual

water transfers. Water deliveries from the Project began in 1967. Until 1991, those

deliveries were reliable, and in fact were the principal source of water for irrigation

within Westland’s. From 1967 to 1991, our water supplies were reduced only two

times; in 1977 and 1978. This reduction was a result of the extraordinary drought

conditions in 1977, the driest year on record in California. However, in 1991 a new

era of Project operations began.

In 1991, the winter–Chinook salmon was listed as a threatened species under the

federal Endangered Species Act. Because of this listing, new restrictions were imposed on the Project. In 1992, the Delta smelt was listed as a threatened species

under the federal Endangered Species Act, and additional restrictions were imposed

on the Project to provide protection to this listed species. Also in 1992, the Central

Valley Project Improvement Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by

former President George Bush.

The purposes of this Act were:

(a) to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in

the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of California;

(b) to address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitats;

(c) to improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project;

(d) to increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project

to the State of California through expanded use of voluntary water

transfers and improved water conservation;

119

(e) to contribute to the State of California’s interim and long-term efforts

to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Estuary;

(f) to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of

Central Valley Project water, including the requirements of fish and

wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors.

The CVPIA has been implemented by the Department of the Interior in a manner

that has reallocated more than 1,000,000 acre-feet of Project water away from

farms, ranches and business that relied upon this water for decades to the environment—for the restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife. Moreover, virtually

all of the water supply reductions that have resulted from implementation of the

Act have been imposed on south-of–Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water

service contractors. The reliability of water supplies for these contractors, including

Westlands, has gone from 92% on average in 1991 to 50% today. The impact of implementing the CVPIA is best demonstrated by allocations to south-of–Delta agricultural water service contractors last year, the sixth wet year of one of the wettest

periods on record. In 2000, these contractors received only a 65% allocation. The disproportionate impact of these regulatory requirements on the water supplies of west

side farmers was recognized by Governor Gray Davis and former Secretary of the

Interior Bruce Babbitt in June 2000, when they signed the CALFED document entitled ‘‘California’s Water Future, A Framework for Action.’’

The Framework for Action correctly noted that Westlands and other San Joaquin

Valley agricultural water contractors have been ‘‘disproportionately affected by recent regulatory actions.’’ A key commitment in the Framework was a provision stating that in a normal water year, south-of–Delta Central Valley Project agricultural

contractors would receive 65 to 70 percent of their contractual water supplies.

Westlands and other San Joaquin Valley agricultural contractors supported the

Framework for Action based on this commitment. But somehow between the signing

of the Framework for Action and the issuing of the formal Record of Decision, that

commitment was amended, and Westlands and other contractors lost more of their

allocation.

In response to diminished water supplies from the Central Valley Project,

Westlands’ farmers have substantially modified their irrigation techniques. First,

more reliance has been placed on the use of groundwater. In 2000, farmers in

Westlands pumped more than 337,000 acre-feet of groundwater for irrigation. This

is more than double the USGS estimate of the safe yield of the groundwater basin,

135,000 acre-feet. The extent to which farmers relied on groundwater last year is

disturbing because precipitation and runoff in 2000 were above normal. Sound principals of conjunctive use dictate that in wet or above normal years, groundwater use

should be reduced to allow the groundwater table to recover.

To maximize the limited supplies, farmers in Westlands have also converted to

more efficient irrigation systems. The conversion to more efficient irrigation methods is depicted in the following table:

Since 1996 Westlands has encouraged this conversion to more efficient irrigation

techniques by offering low-interest loans to its farmers for the purchase of more efficient irrigation systems. By using improved plant varieties, sprinklers, drip and

micro-irrigation, improved furrow and sprinkler management and water recycling,

Westlands farmers continue to have one of the highest seasonal application efficiency ratings in the nation, over 83 percent District-wide.

The value of water from the Central Valley Project includes the production value

of the water, the employment generated by farming of land irrigated with the water

and the income generated for the District by water charges based on the water delivered. The average quantity of water needed to produce a crop on land within the

District is approximately 2.5 acre-feet/acre. Therefore, unless there is a replacement

supply, for every 1,000 acre-feet of CVP water supply reduction, approximately 400

120

acres of land must be removed from production. A conservative estimate of average

annual gross crop value is $1,500 per harvested acre of land within the District. So

the lost revenue resulting from the fallowing of 400 acres is approximately

$600,000. And using the same economic assumption that every $1 produced on-farm

generates another $3.50 in the economy, this impact to the broader economy is $2.1

million. In addition, approximately one full time farm worker is associated with

every 80 acres of land in production. Therefore, for that same 400 acres removed

from production, five people will probably become or remain unemployed.

This year Westlands has received a 45% allocation of its Project water supply, and

it estimates that because of inadequate water supplies, more than 70,000 acres will

be fallowed. This represents a loss of $105,000,000 in lost crop values and a loss

of $367,000,000 to the regional economy. In human terms, it means a loss of 875

on-farm jobs, and an unknown number of jobs in the communities and businesses

that provide services and equipment to farmers in Westlands.

This analysis is consistent with a 1996 study by the California Institute of Rural

Studies entitled 93640 at Risk: Farmers, Workers and Townspeople in an Era of

Water Uncertainty. This profound study reported a decline in farm and packing

wage incomes of $4.8 million, and the loss of 360 to 720 farm jobs due to drought

induced changes in crops during a six-year period from 1987–92. The study also

showed an 11 percent drop in retail sales, and a drop of nearly 30 percent in farmland values compared to increased farmland values in other areas of Fresno County.

The CALFED Program has the potential to solve California’s greatest water problem. To succeed, the Program must be implemented in a balanced, innovative manner that links progress on water supply improvements with progress on environmental restoration and progress on water quality improvements. This is critically

important because notwithstanding the potential benefits to all Californians that

could result from the CALFED Program, if it is implemented in a way that gives

priority to any one of its many purposes, the Program will fail.

Congress can help CALFED solve California’s water problem, and in so doing, restore some of the water supplies that Westlands has lost over the last decade. In

its present form H.R. 1985 will ensure the CALFED Program is implemented in a

balanced manner that will ensure success. Westlands looks forward to working with

the members of the Committee and its staff toward passage of this important legislation.

Thank you.

[An attachment to Mr. Birmingham’s statement follows:]

121

122

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, John. Mr. Moss.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MOSS, GENERAL MANAGER,

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Mr. Calvert, Chairman Calvert and members

of the Committee, I as well wanted to welcome you to the Central

Valley and thank you very much for taking time out of your potential holiday weekend to spend with us and to discuss the needs for

water security in the region.

I’m Richard Moss. I’m the general manager at least for the time

being of the Friant Water Users Authority which represents the

million acres on the east side of San Joaquin Valley. I’m an engineer by trade and I couldn’t do this without a map to speak to, so

if you’ll indulge me for a second.

It’s important for you to understand how the Friant division fits

within the context of the Central Valley. The area in pink here is

the Friant Division of the CVP served by Millerton Lake on the

San Joaquin River to the Madera canal that serves Madera County

and the Friant Canal that serves the County of Fresno, Tulare and

Kern; the number one, number two, number three producing counties in the nation.

The Friant Division was predicated on, as I mentioned, the development of water from Friant Dam. When Congress authorized the

construction of Friant Dam in 1939 and built the dam in 1945 one

of the things that it did was extirpate the last remaining salmon

run that existed on the San Joaquin River, which was the most furthest extent the Chinook salmon would travel in terms of spawning

in the area, which is currently under the Friant Dam. So it’s important for you to understand that in essence this reach of the

river from here all the way down to the Merced for the most part

is dry with the exception of water that may be available in flood

years.

The reason for my bringing that point up is to be able to discuss

with you today the—what we see as the most significant threat to

our water supply security to that one million acres of and four billion dollar agricultural economy of the Friant Division.

That biggest threat I think actually can be turned into a very big

opportunity for all of us. And really that is that rewatering and the

reestablishment of the salmon fishery in the San Joaquin River

below the Friant Dam.

We’ve been involved in litigation with the environmental community since 1988. We took the opportunity to put a stay to that litigation here a couple of years ago in an effort to try to move toward

being cooperative and finding a way to resolve this issue of putting

a salmon run back in the San Joaquin River in a way that keeps

our growers whole from a water supply and cost standpoint. We’ve

actually made great progress in pulling that program together.

We have two sets of studies underway with a lot of help from

both the state and Federal Government in terms of funding, but

those studies will study what it’s going to take to put the fish back

in the river from a biological and hydrological standpoint. And the

other study is where is the water going to come from to meet this

new need for river outflow.

123

So we’re progressing with those studies and we’re intending them

to be completed probably within the next year, which will allow us

then to put together a plan for restoration that we hope can get

broader and broader acceptance.

The Water Enhancement Security Act and CalFed in general has

been very supportive of our efforts and needs to continue to be supportive of our efforts. The CalFed Record of Decision has a major

component in it for San Joaquin River restoration but it doesn’t go

all the way in terms of potentially restoring salmon to our part of

the river. So we’re—we see a need or a gap—to fill the gap in terms

of funding for river restoration ultimately and we’re very pleased

to see the competitive grants program in the bill in a hope that aspect of the bill can be—the Water Enhancement Security Act can

fill that gap in terms of funding to bring us to a program of complete river restoration.

We’re obviously—given the fact that if we’re trying to return an

anadromous fishery to the upper San Joaquin River, we need a robust program of ecosystem improvement in the Delta itself. These

fish are going to have to travel all the way down the river in and

through to the Delta, out the bay and to the ocean if they are going

to have a successful restoration program of salmon. So we need a

healthy Delta, a viable ecosystem there in order to maintain that

fishery as it moves all the way through the system.

So funding CalFed, getting a robust ecosystem restoration program is very important to Friant Division in terms of ultimately

making our salmon recovery project well.

We are concerned that in establishing—that there not be anything in the bill that would establish priorities or cause problems

for our effort in terms of restoration work. We see that as a real

potential of upsetting some delicate priorities in terms of existing

CVP operations and setting out some mandates that will be very

difficult to fulfill in terms of assurances. We would just provide

that caution to you as you go forward.

I think, as you’re well aware, Friant Water Users Authority have

come out in strong support of the Water Security and Water Enhancement Security Act and we do look very much forward to continuing to work with this Committee and all of you. We very much

appreciate your leadership in pulling this bill together and very

much hope it can be a success. We’re pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Moss.

The prepared statement of Richard Moss follows:]

Statement of Richard M. Moss, General Manager, Friant Water Users

Authority

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

I very much appreciate being given the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee to provide responses to your questions about the state of our water supply reliability in the Friant Division of the federal Central Valley Project (‘‘CVP’’),

the actions or activities we have undertaken to improve that reliability and the assistance that federal legislation may be able to provide. I am testifying today as the

General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority and as a small citrus grower

in the Friant Division service area.

I provided testimony to this Committee in March of last year in which I laid out

the hope and the expectations of what water users in our service area would derive

from a CalFed plan that was, at the time, deep in development/negotiation between

the federal Clinton administration and the California Davis administration. A lot

124

has happened since March 2000. A much better understanding of the blueprint for

the CalFed actions anticipated over the next several years is now in place. Thus,

I also intend to update you herein with our most current views of the CalFed Program and how it should reauthorized. In that regard, I have attached as Exhibit

A to my testimony the policy document adopted by the Friant Water Users Authority Board of Directors that provides these views in summary policy form. Please forgive me if some of this testimony covers ground I touched upon in previous testimony.

Introduction

I am Richard M. Moss, the General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority.

The Friant Water Users Authority is a joint powers authority formed under state

law comprised of 25 member agencies that all get water from the Friant Division

of the CVP.

The Friant Division service area is comprised of approximately 1 million acres of

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

all the way to the Grapevine in Kern County. The majority of the service area is

in Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties. This one-million-acre area annually

produces about $4 billion in gross agricultural production. We grow a tremendous

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

grapes, nuts, tree fruit and citrus. We also have a significant amount of row and

field crops, as well as leading the nation in dairy production. This area is truly

unique in its quality of agriculture and in its ability to produce all of this on small

family farms that average approximately 100 acres in size. The area is also renowned for its highly efficient use of irrigation water, having been a ‘‘hot bed’’ for

the development of drip and low volume irrigation technology. We can boast of some

of the highest irrigation efficiencies found anywhere in the world.

The Friant Division of the CVP consists of Friant Dam and Millerton Lake on the

San Joaquin River northeast of Fresno, the 152-mile Friant–Kern Canal that runs

south all the way to Bakersfield and the 36-mile Madera Canal that runs north to

the Chowchilla River. The Friant Division of the CVP annually delivers approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water. This water supply is principally used as a supplemental water supply, providing only 1.5 acre-feet per acre on average. However,

there are some parts of the service area that rely totally on the Friant Division

water as their sole source of supply. The area is blessed with good quality groundwater aquifers. Groundwater is the firm source of supply for the majority of the

service area. The Friant Division is unique in the west in that it employs a twoclass system of water deliveries. The Class 1 water is the first water to develop behind Friant Dam and is delivered to those parts of the service area that have limited or no access to groundwater supplies. The Class 2 water develops only after the

Class 1 demands have been met and is delivered to those parts of the service area

that can rely on groundwater. Class 2 water is typically used to replenish the

groundwater through ‘‘in-lieu’’ recharge—providing growers with surface water inlieu of using their wells, and through direct recharge—percolating water in recharge

basins, natural water ways and unlined canals into the underground aquifers. The

Friant Division has been in service for 50 years and has been successful in arresting

the serious condition of groundwater overdraft that existed prior to the project. It

should be noted, however, that a condition of critical groundwater overdraft still exists in parts of the service area and in neighboring areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The majority of the water rights to the San Joaquin River allowing for the diversion of water at Friant Dam were obtained by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

through purchase and exchange agreements with the individuals and entities that

held those rights at the time the Friant Division was developed. The single largest

of these agreements requires annual delivery of 840,000 acre-feet of water to the

central San Joaquin Valley near Mendota (commonly referred to as the Exchange

Contract). Thus, the Friant Division is dependent upon other features of the CVP,

including Shasta Dam, the Tracy Pumping Plant and the Delta–Mendota Canal, to

facilitate this required exchange. It is important to note that if for some reason the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is unable to meet the demands of the Exchange Contract out of Delta export supplies, the Exchange Contract provides for the release

of water from Friant Dam to meet Exchange Contractor demands.

Factors Leading to Challenges that California is Facing Today in Regards to Water

Supply, Quality and Reliability

The Committee has asked about what I believe are the factors that led to the

water challenges we face today in California.

125

There are a number of factors that have led to the challenges, more accurately

the crisis, we are facing in terms of a chronic water shortage for the state and in

particularly for the San Joaquin Valley as a region.

The state population growth is an underlying force that continues to drive the

need for developing additional water supplies. Yet, we have placed very few new

water projects on line over the past twenty years. This lack of new water supply

infrastructure to meet growing population needs means that we have had to live off

of the ‘‘extra’’ capacity of the system that our forefathers designed and built 30, 40

or 50 years ago. That extra capacity is gone. There is now very limited ability to

weather a one or two year drought, much less a drought comparable to even the

most recent drought of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Beyond the lack of new construction of water supply facilities, are the needs associated with the development of a new environmental ethic in the state and the nation that has sought to address a perceived lack of consideration given to the environment with the construction of much of our water supply system. I remember vividly discussing with my Central Valley Project manager counterparts how we were

going to share the remaining unallocated yield of the CVP of some 1.2 million acrefeet as short a time ago as in 1989. Since that time, we have had the passage and

implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and other regulatory

actions to protect and enhance the environment that have resulted in less and less

water being available for human uses, including agricultural production. A great

deal of this lessening water supply impact has come to rest on the San Joaquin Valley as a region. Water supplies that were historically very dependable are now very

unreliable. The region suffers from a well-documented groundwater overdraft that

has been significantly worsened as a result of lessening availability of surface water

supplies.

The reliability of Friant Division water supplies is currently at risk as a result

of a couple of major actions or activities.

In the first, litigation brought in 1988 by a number of environmental and fishing

organizations seeks to return sufficient flow to the upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River for the restoration of a salmon fishery. Estimates of the need for additional water to restore this fishery range from 150,000 acre-feet to some 600,000

acre-feet per year on the average. If Friant water users were ordered by the courts

to release existing supplies for this purpose, it obviously would have a major impact

on the availability of water to Friant Division water users unless additional water

supplies were developed to meet this need. It is important to note that a stay to

this litigation was developed by the parties to the action in November of 1999 that

allowed the parties a limited period of time to explore ways of restoring flow and

natural processes to the upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River which would provide for the restoration of a fishery while not adversely impacting the available

water supply or cost of water to Friant water users. The development of a plan of

restoration has been progressing for a year, with study results expected to be available at the end of this year or early next year.

The second risk to Friant Division water supplies lies within the fact that the region is now chronically water short. Generally, those areas of the San Joaquin Valley that were the last to develop their land and their rights to water are the first

to be shorted when the inevitable droughts occur. In particular, with the loss of

water supply reliability of waters being exported out of the Sacramento/San Joaquin

River Delta, some of the water users served by the Delta export pumps apparently

feel compelled to attack the water rights and water supplies of their neighbors within the region. These attacks have taken the form of several legal challenges to CVP

operations or other legal maneuvering to avail themselves of the very limited water

supplies that exist for the balance of the region. It is important to note that not

everyone suffering from the water supply cutbacks has taken this aggressive approach. Many, such as the Kern County Water Agency and others, look to a more

cooperative approach to dealing with their water shortages; relying upon creativity

and partnerships as compared to litigation and divisiveness. The legal challenges

and attacks on our continued beneficial use of Friant Division water supplies have

consistently been defeated. However, the cost of defending these claims has been extraordinary, both monetarily and in terms of the uncertainty and acrimony created.

There also exists a threat to the continued use of the available water supplies for

our agricultural economy that are driven by our own regional growth. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the fastest growing regions in the state. Balancing urban area

growth with maintenance of the most productive agricultural region in the world

presents constant challenges. Keeping prime farmland in production next to burgeoning cities is becoming more and more difficult. Moving growth to non-irrigated

lands, like the San Joaquin Valley’s foothills, can only be accomplished if the new

development brings a water supply with it. Given the region’s already chronically

126

water short condition, where will this water supply come from unless new supplies

are developed?

Actions and Measures that Friant Water Users Have Taken to Improve Our Water

Supply, Quality and Reliability

Friant water users believe strongly in joining with others to try and create mutually beneficial partnerships that address our problems and the problems of others.

If you were to have asked what the greatest threat to Friant Division water supplies was four years ago, I would have said it was the potential of an adverse outcome in the effort to allocate the responsibility for meeting Bay/Delta water quality

standards. The stage was set for a massive fight before the California State Water

Resources Control Board between the major water users on the San Joaquin River

upstream of the point where it enters the Bay/Delta, including entities such as Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation District, the

City and County of San Francisco, Delta Export interests, Friant water users and

others. Coming out of the1994 Bay/Delta Accord, the California State Water Resources Control Board was charged with allocating the responsibility for meeting the

flow and water quality standards to the water right holders for waters tributary to

the Bay/Delta. On the San Joaquin River, the responsibility for meeting the new

standards was negotiated and agreed to by the major water right holders on the

river. This agreement is known as the San Joaquin River Agreement and was formally adopted by the State Board in December 1999. The Friant Water Users Authority, on behalf of the Friant Division districts, was a major contributor towards

the development of this agreement. This agreement provides for a twelve-year timeframe to test theories of river flow augmentation combined with export pumping regimes and operation of a barrier at the head of the Old River Channel, designed

to provide the greatest benefit, in terms of survival, for fall run Chinook salmon.

The technical aspects of the San Joaquin River Agreement are known as the

Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan or ‘‘VAMP.’’ In essence, twelve years have been

provided for the users of waters from the San Joaquin River (including Friant water

users) to develop a long-term sustainable plan for the protection of San Joaquin

River fisheries based upon sound scientific evidence that will be generated from the

VAMP analysis. This is considered by virtually everyone in the California water

community to be a victory for compromise over conflict. These once adverse interests

now meet several times a year to adaptively manage the experimental program and

to optimize the value of the San Joaquin River Agreement to the parties and to the

environment.

The previously mentioned stay in the litigation to restore a salmon fishery to the

upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River should also be considered a valuable partnership activity on the behalf of Friant water users to address an issue of tremendous concern. While there is a considerable way to go to completion of a plan for

restoration that keeps Friant Division water users whole from a water supply and

cost standpoint, I have every belief that this effort will be a success. Ten years of

litigation have led to this consensus-based attempt to find resolution to some otherwise intractable issues. The litigation has the potential to go on for at least another

ten years. Even if the plaintiffs were successful, there would be no measurable improvement in the environmental condition of the San Joaquin River below Friant

Dam for a long, long time. Environmental restoration is now being accomplished

and, importantly, the economy of the eastside of the San Joaquin Valley is being

maintained.

Lastly, let me mention the fledgling cooperative efforts between the Friant Water

Users Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

(‘‘MWD’’) to find mutually beneficial ways to improve water management. Within

the past year, Friant interests and MWD representatives began what we hope will

be a productive partnership to assist MWD to significantly improve the water quality to its Southern California water users while at the same time improving the capabilities of Friant Division water districts to manage available and new water supplies to meet existing needs, including the need to develop water supplies for San

Joaquin River restoration. This new partnership has great potential to provide significant benefits to the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California. This partnership, when combined with the partnering efforts involved with San Joaquin

River restoration, clearly has the potential to lead to actions that can benefit virtually the entire state.

Additional Measures or Assistance Needed in the Short, Mid and Long Term to Improve Water Security

As I know you are aware, the Friant Water Users Authority is supportive of the

Western Water Enhancement Security Act Congressman Calvert has introduce

127

along with many of the members of this Committee. We very much appreciate the

leadership of this Committee in developing this legislation. We have sought to have

it strengthened in a couple of regards in order to be more supportive of the actions

and programs we have underway and actions and programs we foresee in the future, importantly including those just previously mentioned.

As noted earlier, in order to address a significant threat to the Friant Division’s

water security, we are developing and implementing a program of restoration for the

upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. Congress clearly recognized the environmental tradeoffs it was making when it authorized the construction of the Friant Division of the CVP back in 1939. We expect Congress and the

federal government to have a major role in the restoration of the river and return

of a fishery. Our progress on the studies and development of a plan for restoration

are ‘‘out of synch’’ from a timing perspective with the immediately needed reauthorization of the CalFed Program. We know the funding needs for the San Joaquin

River restoration program will be significant and we are concerned that they have

not been adequately considered in the CalFed Framework Agreement and the subsequent record of decision. However, we are excited about the provision of a new program contemplated in the Western Water Enhancement Security Act that will allow

projects for water supply development and water quality improvements to compete

for federal grant funding. We believe that with some assurance that our multi-benefit programs for environmental restoration, water supply improvement and water

quality improvement can qualify for the program, that we can compete effectively

for such monies in the future to help meet our local water supply and river restoration needs.

Certainly, creating a well-funded, balanced and scientifically based program of environmental restoration of the Bay/Delta and its tributaries will be consistent with

and supportive of our needed San Joaquin River restoration effort. Even if we are

successful in returning the conditions favorable to an anadromous fishery below

Friant Dam, the conditions all of the way down the river, through the Delta,

through the Bay and to the ocean must also be conducive to successful salmon smolt

out-migration and the return of the adults. In this regard, it is easy to understand

why we believe CalFed must be reauthorized and the environmental restoration program get underway quickly in order for Friant water users to ultimately obtain

their needed water supply security.

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

record of decision, must be supported and the regulatory hurdles leading to construction minimized. This does not mean abandoning existing law and regulation

and running the risk of making environmental or economic mistakes. However, a

plan of water supply development and water quality improvements that takes too

long to come to fruition will only create new mistrust of the process and new reasons for individual interests to think and act only for themselves. Being able to

move effectively and efficiently in making the necessary determinations to effect

water system improvements is essential.

Finally, we have experienced first-hand the cost and anguish of defending our

water rights and water supplies from those who would interpret existing law to an

end never intended by the legislature. We remain concerned about any current or

future effort to weaken our ability to meet the needs of our service area, including

the needs of the San Joaquin River, by those desperate for additional water supplies

within the region. In that regard, we see great potential for the inadvertent upset

of existing water rights and operational priorities for the CVP with otherwise wellintentioned law to provide assurances of a water supply where, truly, no assurance

can be found. Clearly, an assurance to some has the potential to become a huge liability to others and must be avoided unless all interests are in agreement and the

source of the assurance is clear.

Closing

In closing, let me extend my appreciation for the invitation to appear before the

Committee today. Friant water users very much appreciate you coming to the Central Valley to hear our concerns and look forward to working with you to address

these important issues. Thank you.

[An attachment to Richard Moss’ statement follows:]

128

129

130

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Nelson.

STATEMENT OF DAN NELSON, GENERAL MANAGER,

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY

Mr. NELSON. Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, first of all, welcome to the San Joaquin Valley and

thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you today

on the Central California Water Security on Opportunities and

Challenges. My name is Dan Nelson, I’m the executive director of

the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority.

First off, on behalf of the Board of Directors and member agencies, thank you, and your colleague cosponsors for the development

and introduction of H.R. 1985, the Western Water Enhancement

Security Act. Your effort has resulted in legislation that balances

agricultural, urban and environmental objectives and sets CalFed

in motion on the right path.

I’ve submitted written testimony and will go over some of the

highlights of that testimony in shorter form. First of all, I’d like to

leave you with three points today and three key issues.

The first issue would be that California’s headed full steam into

a water supply crisis and that there is a very large block of about

a million acres on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley that’s

already fully engulfed in that crisis.

The second key point I’d like to leave you with today are water

users and purveyors are doing the best that they can to cope with

that crisis through conservation, transfers, reclamation, land retirement, et cetera, but it’s become obvious that through those coping mechanisms alone that they won’t be able to be sustainable.

The third point is that California is in dire need of the implementation of a comprehensive master plan. This comprehensive

master plan is going to have to include additional infrastructure for

additional supplies, regulatory balance and assurances, and continued restoration of fisheries in the environment.

On the water supplies and impacts, over the last 10 years there’s

been several million acre feet of water shifted each year to meet

evolving and environmental mandates. This rededication of resources coupled with rapid population growth has vastly destabilized California’s water picture. Nowhere in the state is this more

evident than the CVP ag contractors south of the Delta.

Mr. Birmingham has already indicated to you we’ve gone from

stability that we’ve had from 1950 through 1990 to a situation of

where our ag users have about 50 to 55 percent average supply

today.

As part of the development of an integrated resource plan, the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has recently done a gap analysis of agriculture on the West side of San Joaquin. And essentially the most

recent—it’s still a working document, but the most recent draft of

this gap analysis has indicated that even with a 70 percent supply

for the ag surface contractors on the West side of the valley, that

there is a—and also taking into consideration the sustainable

groundwater and transfers available to the region, that there is a

gap of over 800,000 acre feet between the legitimate needs to the

region and the supplies available. And that’s assuming that this

area gets 70 percent supply.

131

The water shortage and instability contribute to increased unemployment in an area that already has some of the highest unemployment in the state. The loss of equity as land values plummet

lowers the tax base for schools and local services and subsidence

through lowered groundwater.

The shortage that we’re experiencing on the West side of the San

Joaquin Valley is predominantly as a result of the implementation

of three Federal statutes, the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act of

which we have under the Clean Water Act the State Water Resources of 1995 Water Quality Control Plan.

There’s been a tremendous amount of contentiousness and mistrust that has surfaced as a result of how these acts have been implemented. It’s our feeling that there is—there is discretion to implement those acts in a more balanced way that meet the objectives

of the environment and the objectives of the statutes themselves

while still resulting in reasonable amount of and sustainable water

supply for agriculture.

Some of the—some of the coping mechanisms as I indicated before is high-tech conservation. You’re not going to find any ag area

in the world that is spreading their water thinner and getting more

bang for their buck from the water supply that they have.

In addition to that, they are very, very active out in the transfer

market and have been very successful. I do need to add we’re a little concerned about the future of that market as we implement additional plans such as the environmental water count, public purchases for Level 4 refuge supplies.

There are several programs currently underway of public purchases of additional water and we’re a little concerned about what

they may do to the market and ultimately how realistically are we

looking at the opportunities in future water transfers to meet reduced water supplies.

In closing, the West side of the San Joaquin Valley is looking at

the fixes for themselves through the framework of an integrated resource plan and essentially that resource plan is going to be multifaceted. It will include additional conservation. It will include utilizing our sustainable groundwater as best as we can and maximizing its use, but maintaining its sustainability as well as the

need for some additional supplies and there will be an element of

land retirement.

Right now there’s some proposals of even up to a couple of hundred thousand acres of land proposed or being looked at as being

retired on the West side of the valley. Even with 200,000 acres of

land to be retired on the West side of the valley, that still leaves

close to 3 or 400,000 acre foot gap of sustainability for the remainder of the lands.

A balanced approach for development and managing California’s

water resources into the future is long overdue. Defining and implementing that balance has eluded Californians through decades

of contentiousness amongst the major stake holders. South of Delta

water users and south of Delta rural communities dependent on

the CVP have experienced a downward spiral in their water supplies and economy. H.R. 1985 has provided the region with hope,

132

hope for immediate stability and opportunities to move toward

long-term sustainability.

We once again thank the authors and cosponsors for their vision

and leadership and fully support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.

The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

Statement of Daniel G. Nelson, San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority

I. Introduction

Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on Central California Water Security–Opportunities and Challenges. My name is Dan Nelson, and I am the executive director of

the San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority.

First off, on behalf of our Board of Directors and member agencies, ‘‘thank you’’

and your colleague cosponsors for the development and introduction of H.R. 1985,

The Western Water Enhancement Security Act. Your effort has resulted in legislation that balances agricultural, urban and environmental objectives and sets Calfed

in motion on the right path.

The San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority (Authority) was formed as a

joint powers authority in January 1992. The Authority represents its member agencies at the state and federal levels and advocates on issues that affect their water

supply and the ability to deliver that supply. The Authority’s member agencies take

water from the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) through the Tracy Pumping

Plant and the Delta–Mendota Canal, which the Authority also operates and maintains.

The Authority’s service area stretches from the City of Tracy in Stanislaus County, along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to Kettleman City in Kings County. Its service area also includes the Santa Clara Valley, as well as farmland in San

Benito County and in the Pajaro Valley. In all, the Authority’s membership consists

of 32 water agencies representing agricultural, urban and wetland water suppliers.

The Authority’s members have contracts totaling 3.3 million acre-feet of water

from the CVP and includes over 1 million acres of the most efficient and productive

farmland in the nation. It also includes more than 100,000 acres of seasonally flooded and managed wetlands. Those wetlands, located along the Pacific Flyway, are

home to 1.5 million migratory geese and ducks annually. The service area also includes the Silicon Valley, home to the billion-dollar computer industry and many industrial and municipal water users.

II. CHALLENGES

A. Water Supply/Impacts

Over the last ten years, there has been several million acre-feet of water shifted

each year to meet evolving environmental mandates. This rededication of resources,

coupled with rapid population growth, has vastly destabilized California’s water picture. No where in the state is this more evident than the CVP agricultural contractors south of the delta. Prior to 1989, there was only 2 years in the 45 years of CVP

operations in which these contractors didn’t receive 100% or more of their contract

supplies. Recent modeling has shown that these same farmers can now expect a 50-

55% supply on average. Furthermore if there was a repeat of the 1987–1992 drought

there would be a few years with no water available at all. (Please note graphs

below).

As part of the development of an integrated resource plan the U. S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR) has initiated an analysis to determine the gap between the

water supply available to south delta agricultural users vs. their needs. The most

recent draft of the analysis indicates that even with a 70% allocation from the CVP

supplemented by local groundwater and surface water, there is still a gap of over

850,000 acre-feet. The analysis clearly indicates that status quo for the region is not

sustainable.

The water supply shortage and instability contribute to increased unemployment

in an area that already has some of the highest unemployment in the state, loss

of equity as land values plummet, lowered tax base for schools and local services,

subsidence from lowered ground water, and in general an underlying instability and

uncertainty within the region.

133

B. Regulations

The shortage for south of delta CVP contractors is predominantly the result of the

implementation of three federal statutes:

1) the Central Valley Project Improvement Act;

a. Dedication of CVP water for wildlife refuges

b. Dedication of 800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield for fisheries.

c. Trinity River restoration

2) the Endangered Species Act; and

a. Winter Run Salmon

b. Delta Smelt

3) the Clean Water Act.

a. 1995 State Water Resource Control Board Water Quality Control Plan

These statutes make additional commitments for deliveries south of the delta to

wetlands and wildlife habitat while at the same time reducing the overall amount

of water available to the region through restrictions on pumping from the delta for

fishery and water quality purposes.

Discretion -- There has been a tremendous amount of contentiousness & mistrust

that has developed from the manner in which these statutes have been implemented. It is widely acknowledged that there is broad discretion in how they are

implemented. We strongly believe that the environmental objectives of these statutes could be obtained through a more balanced implementation approach that

would be more efficient for the environment and could have significantly less impacts.

Science -- Contributing to the contentiousness and mistrust is the lack of peer review opportunities and collaboration in the determination of the regulatory requirements. The scientific validity of most of these requirements has never been subject

to independent scientific review. Implicit are a number of important assumptions

whose scientific validity has not been assessed, or worse, assumptions whose validity has been assessed and found wanting. In addition, although their effect on water

supplies is large, no attempt has been made to estimate the effect of these requirements on the fish populations. There is therefore no substantive means to prioritize

actions for the sake of restoration and water supply efficiencies. The Calfed Science

Program offers great promise. The program has assembled an impressive interim

Science Board. Agencies and stakeholders appear to have considerable good will toward and respect for this new program. The key to its success will be the linkage

between the Science Program and the Calfed agencies decision making process on

regulations, the Environmental Water Account, and other biologically sensitive actions.

C. Infrastructure

Compounding the problem of the rededication of agricultural water to environmental uses and population growth has been the lack of development of new supplies over the last couple of decades. Stymied by conflict, disputes and strict regulations California has had to rely almost entirely on an infrastructure built decades

ago. This infrastructure is insufficient for us to be able to accomplish our environmental & agricultural objectives while meeting the needs of an expanding population.

D. Conservation, land retirement and transfers

Conservation -- Water managers and farmers have gone to great lengths and at

great expense to stretch existing water supplies. Irrigation technology, methodology

and efficiencies for south of delta agricultural contractors are renown for both district and farm level efficiencies. Water users and purveyors continue to seek techniques and opportunities to hone their water use and conveyance.

Land Retirement -- To address chronic water shortages and assist in local drainage problems local districts have developed and begun to implement land retirement

programs. Efforts to identify and address third party impacts have been intensified

for larger scale retirement proposals.

Transfers -- South of delta water users have participated successfully in water

transfers over the last decade. There are however, rising concerns about the cumulative effect on the water market by large public water acquisition programs such

as CVPIA Level 4 refuge purchases, Environmental Water Account, Governors

Drought Bank, Calfed Environmental Restoration Program, Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan, and the CVPIA Acquisition Program. In and of themselves these programs have merit but we need to assess the cumulative effects and be more realistic

about future transfer opportunities outside of these programs.

134

III. OPPORTUNITIES

The solutions to south of delta CVP contractors supply deficiency and instability

will need to include both a reduction of demand and recovery of some of the supplies

that have been rededicated. The solutions will be a variety of regional based

projects/programs coupled with CVP and state-wide based projects/programs.

A. Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)

South of delta CVP contractors are supportive of the development and implementation of a comprehensive IRP as the framework for moving toward the resolution

of their short and long term water supply issues.

The Mid-Pacific Region of the USBR is undertaking an Integrated Resources Plan

for the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in cooperation with the Authority and

other local stakeholders. The IRP will be a resources management master plan to

consider water management in the context of environmental and socioeconomic factors. The focus of the study will be on alternative means of reducing the imbalance

between water demand and supply. Water quality, land use, environment, flood control, drainage, groundwater, and local economic issues will be considered. The IRP

will be used by USBR, water districts, and others to guide water supply development and management in the future.

The Plan will be based on a detailed water supply and demand analysis. Essential

to this base is a reasonable CVP allocation and a balanced and stable regulatory

regime that accomplishes environmental objectives while minimizing water supply

impacts.

Water management options include ongoing programs, options identified in the

Calfed Record of Decision, and other local and regional options. These options could

include:

• Additional water conservation, water transfers and exchanges;

• Management of agricultural drainage including additional land retirement,

water treatment and tailwater reuse;

• Surface and groundwater storage;

• Projects that improve local flood control that also have a water supply benefit;

• Conveyance improvements such as the Delta–Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct Intertie, the San Luis Bypass, and canal enlargements; and

• Environmental restoration and enhancement projects within the region.

B. H.R. 1985, the Western Water Enhancement Security Act

A balanced approach for developing and managing California’s water resources

into the future is long overdue. Defining and implementing that balance has eluded

Californians through decades of contentiousness among the major stakeholders.

South of delta water users and south of delta rural communities dependent on the

CVP have experienced a downward spiral in their water supplies and economy.

H.R. 1985 has provided the region with hope. Hope for immediate stability, and opportunities to move toward long term sustain-ability. We once again thank the authors and cosponsors for their vision and leadership and fully support the passage

of this legislation.

[Attachments to Mr. Nelson’s statement follow:]

135

136

137

Mr. Herrick.

STATEMENT OF JOHN HERRICK, ATTORNEY FOR

SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY

Mr. HERRICK. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. My name isJohn Herrick.

I’m the attorney for the South Delta Water Agency, not the general

manager. I appreciate being invited here, obviously. These problems are very significant as well as threatening to all the parties

involved here. But I’d like to take a certain different focus than the

other speakers.

When the Central Valley and state water projects were built,

they were finalized based on certain promises that were made and

those promises were then put into statutes in California. Specifically those statutes include the Delta Protection Act, which said

that you will maintain a supply of good quality water in the Delta

for all purposes, but including current and future Delta needs.

The statutes that were passed were the Area of Origin Watershed Protection Acts, which said basically that as those areas grow,

they will be able to take advantage of this newly restored water so

that their future has not been mortgaged at the expense of somebody else’s future.

Those two acts contemplated unless there is an increased supply

that there will be less available for exports. That’s what they say.

That’s what was promised and that’s what’s in the statutes.

Now the representative from the Regional Council of Rural Counties didn’t tell you what we’ve been discussing with them a lot.

Their general plans for the next 30 years to 2030 anticipate that

they will need 3 to 5 million acre feet more of water. If we don’t

increase the pie, there’s zero export.

Now, that’s a slight overstatement. That’s the magnitude of the

problem. And so if we do not figure out how to have more water

for everybody, then you will simply be choosing sides as to who will

get what is there.

One of the problems that we have with the current—the current

thought process is that increased supply is always the promise.

We’re studying the raising of Friant. We’re studying the raising of

Shasta. We’re looking into the Sites Reservoir. But while you’re

looking into that, you’re now trying to promise somebody will have

a greater supply right now. We don’t want to be the opponents of

the rest of the ag in the state.

We heard Mr. Birmingham say after 6 years of the wettest time

we’ve had, 6 years wettest record on—six years wettest on record

they are getting 50, 60 percent. If you say now I’m going to look

into more storage, but I want to give them more, where is it going

to come from? There’s no extra supply of water that’s not being

used.

What you’re doing is pitting one part of the state against another

when you select somebody to protect. You did it in 19—I don’t

mean you specifically. You did it in 1992 when you said I think the

environment needs 800,000 acre feet. We just heard the speaker

say they are 800,000 acre feet short. Where did that come from?

You can’t simply say this group needs more money if you don’t

have a larger supply. And CalFed is not helping. CalFed undertook

its preferred alternative based on the assumption that the Delta

138

water will get worse in quality. The preferred alternative makes it

worse for my clients.

Now, they are trying to make it better for export quality versus

cities because they have problems with treatment. It gets worse for

my client. So when we talk about everybody getting better together, it’s not happening. CalFed wants to export more water.

These people need more water. So do the cities.

You know what happens when you export more water? You increase the level of harm to my clients. My clients are harmed every

day by your export projects, every day. Last week and the week before I received calls from diverters on Old River. John, my siphons

won’t work. You know why they won’t work? Because the water

levels have been dropped to a point where they can’t be diverted.

Those people who live in the Delta, those people are supposed to

be provided with protections not only from the Delta Protection

Act, which says you’ll take care of them, but from the general laws

which say you shouldn’t be able to operate without harming somebody else. That’s what’s happening now.

If you think that CalFed is solving those problems, you’re wrong.

CalFed has embarked upon a method to change the way that the

state project diverts. That’s fine. They are going to do that, too. Not

only get more water, which their clients need, but in order to protect fisheries, too, they are going to try to restay the intake at Clinton Forebay in a manner that protects fish. You should know now

when you salvage fish you kill them. There’s no protection of fish

now.

We’re going to do that in a manner which forces them to change

the way and the rate in which they draw water into the forebay.

DWR water says it will double the amount of draw down that my

clients are experiencing. Double it. There’s no plan to address that.

They are going to look into it. But there’s no plan to address that.

There’s also no plan to address the amount of salt coming down

the river. The state and Federal projects import 100 million tons

of salt every year and then the users use the water, it gets concentrated and up to 400,000 tons of that gets poured back into the

San Joaquin River and guess where that goes. It goes down to my

client.

DWR and the USBR have no plan by which to meet the four interior Delta salinity standards, but CalFed wants to import more

water down there. We’re not trying to fight these guys, but you

can’t address one problem without the other. It’s all redirected impacts. Every time you choose something to do it, it’s redirected impacts.

Unless you go forward and say you have to mitigate what you’re

going to do and we’re going to have X amount of water, you’re not

solving the problem. If you try to redivide the pie now, you’re simply harming some other people.

I’d like to add one more thing. I understand I’m going long here.

You all know the peripheral canal, what that was, right? A tremendous fight, we thought it was decided. CalFed wants to store water

in the Delta and son of a gun they decide on a way that buys up

the heart of the Delta, six islands now, six, and enough water is

not going to go through the Delta. It’s going to be piped from one

island to another island. Oh, son of a gun, we got a way now to

139

transport the fresh water from the Sacramento River system across

the Delta to the export pumps without the uncomfortable necessity

of it going through the Delta channels.

That’s not right. Please don’t force us to fight the same battle

again. We need new supplies. We don’t need reliabilities. We need

sufficiency. We don’t need new storage. We need new yield. And

unless you make those distinctions and embark upon a plan to get

a bigger pie, we will be fighting forever and nobody’s going to win.

But the first group that’s going to lose are my clients. When you

buy up a third of the Delta to mitigate the impasse of the export

project, you’re just admitting that we’re just in the way of what

you’re trying to accomplish.

Thank you for your time very much. There’s numerous issues

that we can discuss tonight. I’m looking forward to more questions.

Thank you.

The prepared statement of Mr. Herrick follows:]

Statement of John Herrick, Attorney for South Delta Water Agency,

Stockton, California

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:

I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak before this Committee. As you

can imagine, it is very difficult for us to schedule time to attend any Committee

hearings in Washington D.C., and so holding one here is greatly appreciated.

My name is John Herrick. I am the attorney for the South Delta Water Agency

and work closely with counsel for the Central Delta Water Agency. I am appearing

here today on behalf of both Agencies. Our Agencies encompass a large part of the

Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (‘‘Delta’’) from which both the State and Federal

projects export water. The Delta is the end of the line for most of the major rivers

of the state and suffers the impacts of decreased flows, degraded water quality, lowered water levels and reverse flows. In light of this, the Delta Water Agencies have

a unique perspective with regard to the water problems facing our State.

The problems are monumental, and because they are not being adequately addressed, the State as a whole and our clients in particular continue to suffer while

the various interests fight over how to re-divide an already too small pie. We originally hoped that CALFED would work towards solving these problems, but its

wrongly focused and mutually exclusive goals will worsen the problems so desperately in need of fixing.

As you know, over twenty million Californians rely on the Delta for all or some

of their water needs. Most of this water is delivered to them by the State and Federal projects, known as the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, respectively. These projects built extensive systems of dams, canals, aqueducts and

pumps to deliver surplus flows and stored water to agricultural users in the San

Joaquin Valley and municipal users throughout the southern half of the State. The

California statutes which allowed these projects to proceed, either created or reserved certain rights for those areas from which the water originates or is exported.

These statutes generally include the Delta Protection statutes, the Area of Origin

statutes, and the Watershed of Origin statutes. Taken as a whole, these statutes

require that the Delta and upstream areas are entitled to protection from the

projects, and as they grow, they will be able to use the water developed by the

projects. In other words, the underlying principle of the projects is that as time goes

on, there will be less water available for export.

Contrary to the law, the projects refuse to supply the current needs of area of origin and in–Delta users. In addition, we are now at the point where the growing

needs of those areas of origin are being circumvented because State and Federal

agencies are trying to increase the amount of water for export without increasing

new supply or yield. The Regional Council of Rural Counties, which includes most

of the areas of origin for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers has estimated

from the General Plans of its constituent that those counties will need an additional

3–5 million acre feet of water by 2030. It is simple mathematics to see that in a

relatively few short years, all of the current yield of the projects will be needed for

the areas of origin, with little left for exports.

This is the crux of the problem facing us. Any efforts that seek to increase exports

without corresponding increases in yield or developed water forces the various areas

140

of the State to fight each other in order to both survive and to protect their future

growth. Currently the State and Federal governments are taking sides, thereby promoting the conflict. Since CALFED began, we have asked and demanded it catalog

and estimate current water needs, then compare that to projected needs for all uses,

and determine the shortfall. Rather than do this, CALFED has simply assumed that

reallocating current supplies will provided sufficient quantity. This incredible assumption is based on an unwritten plan to slowly take the water away from agriculture to meet environmental and urban needs. Notwithstanding that this assumption is simply wrong, such a policy should be subject to public debate before the bureaucracy tramples the underlying rights of the parties. CALFED’s approach creates

confusion and misunderstanding because it talks of ‘‘water reliability’’ without discussing the inadequacy of the supply. It also masks the true situation by referring

to ‘‘new storage’’ it will create without explaining how this will (or will not ) affect

the overall yield of the system.

The bottom line is California needs additional supply; not reliable shortages and

not new storage that is not new yield. Our State has only been able to survive

droughts by over-drafting its groundwater basins. CALFED makes no effort to address this situation, rather it exacerbates the situation by promoting water transfers

of surface supplies which leads sellers to rely more on groundwater. Recent draft

legislation attempts to delve into these issues, but gets sidetracked in creating preferences to protect certain interest groups.

Another issue facing California’s water future deals with whether or not the

projects will be required to operate in a manner that does not simply shift burdens

to innocent third parties and interests. Currently the projects redirect impacts to

two main groups. The first is our clients, the users in the Delta. The operation of

the State and Federal projects does four things: (i) decreases the level of the water

in the Delta to the point where local diverters cannot exercise their riparian and

other superior rights, (ii) fundamentally alters the direction of flow in the Delta

which creates stagnant zones where contaminants concentrate, (iii) decreases the

amount of water flowing into the Delta during times when local needs are not being

met, and (iv) causes upstream drainage of a quality that greatly exceeds downstream water quality objectives.

In spite of the existence of these problems and the ongoing failure to address

them, CALFED has undertaken to increase the activities which cause these problems, before (and sometimes instead of) first curing these problems. As an example,

in order to export more water in a supposed fish-friendly manner, a new place of

diversion for the State project has been chosen. Operation of this new diversion site

will, according to the State’s modeling, double the existing draw down of water. In

other words, CalFed has undertaken to increase the harm to third parties before

it has figured out how to mitigate the current level of harm. You should know that

it is the expressed position of the Bureau of Reclamation that it need not operate

in a manner that protects Delta diverters.

The second group suffering the impacts of the operation of the projects is the environment, including and especially fisheries. This is a complicated issue, not well understood or handled. The Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Fish and Game,

and National Marine Fishery Service seek large amounts of money and water to

mitigate the loss of habitat and lessen the threat to endangered species. At the

same time, those agencies are allowing the State and Federal export projects to kill

large amounts of endangered species. This year, 18,000 endangered salmon were

killed and in the last two years over 100,000 Delta smelt. While allowing this, those

fishery agencies actively seek to prevent other actions which would mitigate the adverse affects those same projects have on in–Delta users, specifically my clients. It’s

okay to kill endangered species, but it’s not okay to protect riparians.

Either the fisheries are endangered or they are not. If they are, then the projects

should be operated in a manner that does not kill thousands of endangered species

in order to provide a certain level of exports. Regardless, those projects should be

required to operate in a manner that does not harm innocent third parties who existed well before the export projects began and who have water rights superior to

theirs.

CALFED’s environmental water account, or EWA, is a curious example. This proposal naturally sounds beneficial; a supply of water for use to help fisheries. The

problem is that it simply shifts a burden from one party to another. Remember,

there is no extra, unused supply of water. First, the account is used to protect the

junior most water right holders from the obligation of mitigating their adverse effects on fisheries. If they are allowed to cap the amount of mitigation needed to address the impacts they have caused, then the remaining needs simply get reallocated to others, directly or indirectly. This redirection of the obligation to mitigate

impacts on fisheries is best evidenced by New Melones dam and reservoir, a portion

141

of the Federal project on the Stanislaus River. In order to help restore Delta fishery

needs, New Melones must release 1500 cfs at some times when other similar size

rivers have downstream obligations one tenth that amount. To justify this and

maintain control of this water, the Fish and Wildlife Service claims the water is for

Stanislaus fisheries, but it coincidentally provides the lion’s share of Delta needs .

This tremendous loss of water directly decreases the amounts available to San Joaquin county which borders the river.

Second, purchasing water encourages diverters and reservoir operators to collect

or control more water than they consume so they can both sell water and still meet

their needs. Again, since there is no unused or extra supply of water in the system,

the control of this water simply shifts the shortage to someone else.

One of the most prevalent fallacies in water is that conservation is the key to

more supply. Such a position ignores the distinction between consumption of water,

and use or application of water. Conservation in practice means that a party still

consumes the same amount of water, but prevents the loss of some of its applied

or un-consumed water. However, this simply reallocates a shortage. On the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems, everybody’s return flow, drainage, or

‘‘wasted water’’ helps meet someone else’s needs, including fishery needs. This is because that water adds to downstream river flows or groundwater supplies. When

you conserve water in Sacramento, there is less water in the river and Delta. As

a consequence, there is a greater need for upstream releases to meet standards such

as Delta outflow which protects many interests including fisheries. This ‘‘conservation’’ simple reallocates the shortage of the entire system.

Conservation in some areas is beneficial. When you put a brick in your toilet in

San Francisco, less fresh water is discharged into the ocean, and thus there is more

net supply. For this reason, our agencies advocate efforts to make areas which rely

on imported water more self sufficient. Installing gray water lines in new construction, trapping seasonal flows to the ocean, and desalinating brackish groundwater

are just a few of the possibilities. It is important for any Federal legislation to recognize the distinctions in what conservation means in any particular area. Previous

efforts toward this end have been universally ignored by the Bureau of Reclamation.

In the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act encouraged transfers of water,

but only water that was made available from a decrease in consumption or a decrease in water previously irretrievably lost. After the numerous transfers which resulted, I know of none that complied with this provision.

Please bear in mind, when any conservation results in a reallocation of the shortage, it may increase the amount available for fisheries at one time, but almost always decreases the water available at another time. We rob Peter to pay Paul.

The implementation of the EWA is also done in a manner that causes harm to

third parties who are already being impacted by the export pumps. The fishery

agencies won’t allow my clients to be protected from the exports during times environmental water is being used. The permit conditions for the South Delta tidal barriers, which mitigate some of the effects caused by the export pumps, preclude barrier operations when EWA water is being released. Whether or not the barriers

themselves impact fish (as the agencies claim) is irrelevant. The point is that in

order to help fish, the Federal government stops helping others who it is also harming; redirecting the shortage of water.

As you can see, the consequence of creating an environmental water account is

to simply transfer the shortage of water available for fish to someone else. Incredibly, CALFED transfers the shortage to the senior water right holders in order to

protect the junior water right holders.

It is common today to ‘‘seek consensus’’ and ‘‘balance needs’’ while addressing the

problems. These are terms that make people feel good; mostly people who get their

water out of a faucet. But when balancing means a riparian in the Delta has no

water so that exports can continue, the term is a direct challenge to the existing

law. You don’t balance needs when Water Code § 12204 states . . . ‘‘no water shall

be exported which is necessary to meet’’ in–Delta needs. The natural consequence

of this feel good attitude is to ask senior water right holders to suffer so that junior

ones get more. This reversal of California water right priorities continues at an accelerated pace. It began with the Delta Accord wherein the State and Federal

projects worked out a deal to help fisheries as long as exports didn’t decrease further. It continued with the projects asking the State Water Resources Control Board

to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan for the Delta which also guaranteed exports

would not decrease. Now, CALFED not only continues the principal of ‘‘no net loss’’

of exports, but seeks to increase the amount available to certain export contractors.

There is no magic wand that makes more water. If the Federal government mandates more for one interest, some other will have less. Since the proposal is to

142

deliver more to junior right holders, then necessarily, senior right holders will have

less.

Another example of redirected impacts is found in the salinity issue. The export

projects deliver up to 100,000,000 tons of salt to the San Joaquin Valley each year.

Up to 400,000 tons of that comes back into the San Joaquin River as either surface

or subsurface drainage and in concentrations sometimes 10 to 20 times that of the

applicable water quality standard. If the Federal government wants to help

California, it should begin to solve this problem rather than continually make it

worse. Not only does the drainage ruin the San Joaquin River and harm downstream users, but the accumulation of salts in the San Joaquin Valley is dooming

the next generation of agriculture. You should bear in mind that CALFED is doing

nothing to address this problem; its trying to increase the amount of salt to be imported.

CALFED seeks to embark on a monumental program of ecosystem restoration, including the creation of upwards of 300,000 acres of habitat in the Delta. The consequences of such a loss of farm land are virtually ignored by the bureaucrats who

view Delta agriculture as an obstacle. Any such project should require approval by

local governmental agencies in order to insure that the State and Federal Governments are not simply imposing their will on others. This loss of agricultural land

and production is virtually ignored by CALFED. The impacts to future food and

fiber supply of the nation must be considered.

We have already seen though, that CALFED will try to avoid the legal obligations

of examining the impacts of land purchases. As an example, rather than go through

the CEQA and NEPA processes, CALFED simply gave a grant to the Nature Conservancy in order to purchase Staten Island in the north part of the Delta. This sort

of end run of the law should not be tolerated. Actions like this continue to make

us suspicious of the motives involved. As you can see from my attachment and the

in–Delta storage discussion below, Staten Island just happens to be part of the pathway for a Peripheral Canal.

Further, local, State, and Federal agencies already own or control significant acreage in the Delta and yet have not attempted to maximize its habitat value. There

is no reason to embark on additional purchases of land if the government does not

use what it already has.

Finally on this point, you should understand the underlying lack of logic for what

is being done. In order to export water to certain areas of the State, we create a

system that harms the Delta, fisheries and the environment. In order to mitigate

for that harm, the State and Federal governments seek to buy up large parts of the

Delta and decrease the amount of water available therein which puts the Delta

farmers out of business and strangles the local economy. The net effect is that the

government is trying to promote one areas’ growth at the expense of other areas.

Lastly, I would like to explain another way in which CALFED threatens the Delta

rather than help it. Twenty years ago, the people of California voted down a project

known as the Peripheral Canal. That project was a component of the State Water

Project and proposed to move Sacramento River water to the export pumps without

having the water go through the channels of the Delta; rather it would go through

an isolated canal around the Delta. Obviously, removing more of the good quality

water from the Delta does not improve the Delta. CALFED began by advocating

some similar isolated facility, either across the Delta or around it. After a tremendous outcry from the public, CALFED changed its position and stated it would not

seek any isolated facility unless and until current efforts to use Delta channels

proved ineffective in improving water quality. The time frame given for the efforts

was seven years.

Last minute negotiations leading to the CALFED Record of Decision (conducted

without public involvement) inserted a decision to ‘‘fast track’’ in–Delta storage. We

recently discovered that a previously proposed private project to flood Delta islands

for storage has been ‘‘reconfigured’’ to add a fifth island and to allow water to pass

from flooded island to flooded island without the water flowing through Delta channels. Attached hereto is an overhead/map of the Delta indicating those Delta islands

the government seeks to purchase or control and thus accomplish the isolated transfer of water across the Delta, not through it. The sad fact is that CALFED intentionally misled us on this issue.

Of all the threats to beneficial uses in the Delta, especially agriculture, I believe

this is the most serious. Once the State and Federal projects can isolate the Delta

from the fresh water of the Sacramento River, they will. In that event, the incentive

to restore and protect in–Delta water quality and quantity, as required by law, will

evaporate and the Delta will die.

In conclusion, I request that you be very cautious before considering Federal legislation to force our system to provide more water or more protection to any particular

143

interest. A better approach would be to first require the Federal Central Valley

Project to fully mitigate its adverse effects on third parties and the environment;

that way you stop trying to accomplish your goals by taking away from some to give

to others. Second, you should authorize actions that will help contribute to the overall supply of water in California so that the existing laws of priority can be followed

and everyone can be supplied. Finally, you should endeavor to protect agriculture

which is and will continue to be necessary to feed California and the nation.

Thank you for your time.

[A map attached to Mr. Herrick’s statement follows:]

144

145

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. White.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS WHITE, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL

CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS W.A.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Chris White. I’m the general

manager of the Central California Irrigation District. I am testifying today on behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority. We’re about 250,000 acres on the West side

of San Joaquin Valley near Los Banos, California.

First, we would like to commend you on the hard work you and

your staff have done in a very short period of time. In addition to

grasping this topic, you’ve produced some very promising legislation.

The Exchange Contractors hold a very unique position in the

California water system. We hold both riparian and pre-1914 water

rights from the San Joaquin River.

In 1939 through historic purchase agreement an exchange with

the Bureau of Reclamation, we exchanged the right to utilize that

historic water for sources from the Delta. That Exchange Contractor Act of over 60 years ago allowed for the development of the

Friant system of water delivery and storage and the water distribution of storage on the Kings River. This should remind us all that

we have a history in California of being able to make decisions on

a local level and having them benefit the entire state including the

urban interest.

Under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, current efforts by the

Congress seem to express the position that the Federal Government will no longer tolerate endless agonizing in an effort to find

the infamous win-win for everyone plan. This approach is guaranteed that nothing has been done to increase water supplies for the

last 10 years.

For the last 40 years the Exchange Contractors have led in the

fight for drainage in our area. The regional board, EPA and State

Water Resources Control Board, in various forms worry about the

quality of the San Joaquin and wish to regulate discharges.

In 1963 and again in 1967 the Bureau promised in Federal Court

the San Luis Drain would be built. More recently in response to

contractors, Exchange Contractors, the bureau has again been required to submit a drainage plan to the court.

The plan that the Bureau of Reclamation has ultimately submitted appears to emphasize land retirement. Based on the Exchange Contractor’s many years of dealing with this drainage problem, I would like to offer the following observations.

One, land retirement is a part of the solution or can be part of

the solution. But to rely upon it alone is again to adopt a shortterm approach in which the only acceptable alternative is one that

garners the least opposition. In some way the point has to be made

that this type of short-term approach to problem solving on water

issues is no longer adequate.

Two, the construction of the San Luis drain was stopped on the

theory that more studies were needed. Since that time the Federal

146

Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and yet no

solution or long-term solution has been found.

If the local citizens and growers in our area in 1960 had been

offered a solution or a way to solve the problem, we’re going to give

you grants and loans and we’re also going to quit worrying about

whether we might someday, somehow make a mistake, this problem would not exist today.

In light of this experience of the Exchange Contractors we enthusiastically endorse your concept, Mr. Chairman, of a grant program

to fund worthy projects.

Third, new water supply facilities, new facilities to carry on the

flexibility and sources and deliveries with which the Exchange Contractors made possible in the 1939 exchange have all been a part

of this debate. Government must rid themselves of the notion that

it is possible to study and consider alternatives and call that

progress.

The implementing parties must be local agencies. Progress can

only occur, however, if government is required to grant all the permits in such a fashion that the project is not stalled indefinitely.

All we need is for the Congress to provide us with the ability to

develop new water sources and systems for transportation of water

which will provide water supply security, enhance the environment

and the economic well-being of this country.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we’d like to thank you for the opportunity

to testify today and we are happy to answer any questions.

The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

Statement of Chris White, General Manager, Central California Irrigation

District, on behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water

Authority

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Chris

White, and I am the General Manager of the Central California Irrigation District.

I am testifying today on behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors

Water Authority which consists of the Central California Irrigation District,

Firebaugh Canal Water District, San Luis Canal Company and Columbia Canal

Company, situated in the central San Joaquin Valley near Los Banos, California.

First, I would like to commend you on the hard work you and your staff have done

in a very short period of time. Since becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee of

Water and Power, you have had to learn a lot about a very complicated topic. In

addition to grasping this topic you have produced a very promising piece of legislation.

The Exchange Contractors hold a very unique position in the California water system. We hold riparian and pre-l9l4 water rights from the San Joaquin River. Historically, water was diverted from the San Joaquin River at Mendota Dam into extensive canals in a Northerly direction. This water irrigates approximately 250,000

acres of land on the West side of the San Joaquin River.

In l939, through a historic Purchase Agreement and Exchange Agreement with

the Bureau of Reclamation, the Exchange Contractors exchanged the right to utilize

their historic water sources in the Kings River and the San Joaquin River for receipt of water through the CVP diverted from the Tracy Pumps.

Today, Congress must understand that a great deal can be accomplished by local

interests and entities, and the benefits of their acts can be felt statewide. A perfect

example of that is reflected in what the Exchange Contractors did over 60 years ago

to substitute their historic water source, in order to allow for development of the

Friant Kern Canal and the development of new water storage and distribution facilities upon the Kings River. This should remind us all that we have a history in

California of being able to make decisions at the local level which benefit the whole

State, including urban interests.

It should remind us as well that the proper role of the Federal Government is

to assist in the financing that allows those beneficial projects and facilities to be

built with local impetus and organization that allow all of our needs to be met.

147

Today, the Exchange Contractors provide for groundwater management of the underground aquifers under their 250,000 acre service area by conjunctively using surface water, coordinating the extraction of groundwater, and carefully monitoring recharge sources. These groundwater areas appear to be in balance and are not overdrafted. How was this accomplished? Through grant programs and low interest

loans offered by members of the Exchange Contractors to their landowners and tenants to encourage water conservation and control and by the Exchange Contractors

themselves investing in capital facilities. Over the years, there has been a tendency

to study and consider alternatives endlessly. The Exchange Contractors, on the

other hand, have found that failing to act out of a fear of making a mistake poses

the greatest risk.

Under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, current efforts by the Congress seem to express the position that the Federal Government, while inviting the State of

California as a partner in the process, will no longer tolerate endless agonizing in

an effort to find the infamous ‘‘win, win for everyone’’. This approach has guaranteed that nothing has been done to increase water supplies for the last 30 years.

And, and we are grateful for this proactive—and indeed courageous—approach.

The Exchange Contractors, in addition to developing long-term solutions to water

problems in California, have some experience dealing with short term thinking and

solutions of the recent past which may be helpful in this process. In l960 the San

Luis Act provided that drainage would be provided for the San Luis Unit as part

of the Central Valley Project. It was well known that lands in the San Luis Unit,

many of which are at a higher elevation than the service area of the Exchange Contractors, would become salinized if not properly drained. Worse yet for the Exchange

Contractors, these lands would drain downhill into our service area resulting in intolerable shallow groundwater and poor quality water rising to the surface—destroying some of the most productive agricultural land in California.

For the last 40 years, the Exchange Contractors have led the fight to require that

drainage be done. During that time, we have watched as shallow groundwater levels

have risen to the surface of the Exchange Contractors’ land, watched as salinity and

boron levels of our drainage system increase due to these pressures, and have

watched as the rising dysfunction of the State and Federal regulatory approach to

the ‘‘drainage problem’’ has made little progress toward a solution.

The Regional Board , EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board in various forums worry about the quality of the San Joaquin River and wish to regulate

discharges. In 1963, and again in 1967, the Bureau of Reclamation promised, in

Federal Court, that the San Luis Drain would be built. More recently, in response

to yet another action filed by landowners and the Exchange Contractors, the Bureau

has again been required to submit a drainage plan to the Court.

The plan that the Bureau ultimately submitted emphasizes land retirement. Unfortunately, this is only part of the solution. Based on the Exchange Contractors’

many years of dealing with this problem, I would like to offer the following observations:

l. After irrigation of the upslope lands for 30 or more years without an adequate drainage system, to suggest that the solution is now simply to stop

irrigation on those lands ignores the quantity of water which was been

applied over this period and which is perpetually going to rise to the surface within the Exchange Contractors’ service area. Land retirement is

part of a solution, but to rely upon it alone is to again adopt a short term

approach in which the only acceptable alternative is the one that garners

the least opposition. In some way, the point has to be made that this type

of short-term approach to problem solving on water issues will no longer

be adequate.

2. Efforts to solve the drainage problem in the San Luis Unit are emblematic of the history of water decision making over the last 30 years in

California. It was the State of California which stopped construction of

the San Luis Drain, not Federal inaction, on the theory that more studies were needed. Since that time, the Federal Government has spent

hundreds of millions of dollars studying the problem and no long term

solution has been found. Unfortunately, the interplay between State and

Federal Government has been a leading cause of the lack of progress.

The lesson the Exchange Contractors take from this experience is that

if the local citizens in the area had in l960 been told that the way that

we are going to solve the drainage problem is to provide grants—part

from the State and part from the Federal government—and that we are

going to stop worrying about making a mistake to the degree that it

paralyzes all action and instead, build or do something about the water

itself, we would not continue to have the problems that exist today.

148

In light of this experience, the Exchange Contractors enthusiastically endorse your concept, Mr. Chairman, of a grant program to fund worthy

projects.

3. With any solution, Congress must be explicit. New water supply facilities, new facilities to carry on the tradition of flexibility in sources and

deliveries which the Exchange Contractors made possible in l939 in the

area South-of-the–Delta have all been a part of the debate. Similarly, it

appears that there has been agreement that the State government and

Federal government bureaucracies must rid themselves of the notion

that it is possible to study and consider alternatives and call this

progress. The implementing parties are local agencies rather than the

State or Federal government. Our experience tells us that this is where

progress can be made. That progress can only occur however if the State

and Federal bureaucracies are required to grant all permits required to

implement a project deemed worthy of a grant in such a fashion that the

project is not stalled indefinitely. The example of California and the

power crisis is overused but one theme that everyone agrees is present— the mix of combative regulatory and legislative bodies do not make a

good cake.

In conclusion, the Exchange Contractor’s experience and historical perspective

may be of help to you in considering how to avoid the collapse of the California

water infrastructure in the same way that the California power infrastructure has

collapsed. The nationwide effects of a significant loss of California productivity due

to water shortages is much greater than rolling blackouts and increased power bills.

The Exchange Contractors, and others like us, have the resolution and the energy

and the willingness to work with all of the stakeholders to resolve many of the problems we are discussing here today. All we need is for the Congress to provide us

with the ability to develop new water sources and systems for transportation of

water which will provide water supply security, enhance the environment and the

economic well being of this country.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking the time to hold this series

of hearings on this important topic. With your leadership, I am optimistic that we

can find some common ground and ultimately, find a solution to these problems. If

there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I appreciate all your testimony and I

think I’ve met with each one of you separately, together and you

have helped teach me about what’s going on here in this part of

the state in regards to water.

Obviously, as Mr. Herrick very ably pointed out along with the

rest of you, is that we’ve got a problem. That’s why we’re here

today and we’ll be in San Jose on Monday. We were in Cerritos and

we’ll be at other places around the state to listen and learn.

As I approach a question, it’s important to point out that you

can’t say this enough that we don’t have enough water and if we

don’t honestly deal with that problem, we will have continued conflict and no one will win and so we’re trying to put together a piece

of legislation that will move the process forward that will work in

a balanced way for the environment, for the rural community and

the urban community where we all can hopefully win or we’ll all

lose.

So with that, we put together a legislation, H.R. 1985, which

also has two other sections to the bill. One, we didn’t take anything

out of CalFed as the Record of Decision, but we did add to it and

we put a process upon it where it would move things forward.

Two sections, of course, the grant section which was talked about

and bringing back a small loan reclamation project through the Bureau to the western states, which would allow not only for water

projects, but for environmental mitigation, something we’ve been

talking about for some time. Those two sections, by the way, are

necessary and expensive, but the Federal Government should

149

participate because we’ve imposed Federal law upon all water

users in the deal, so any comment about those two sections and

whether or not the State of California or even more specifically

your areas could meet future needs or existing needs without those

two sections. I’ll just open it up for 5 minutes of any comments.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I’ll start and say absolutely not. I think the

CalFed program is one element of the development of the water resources necessary to sustain the economy of the State of California

and to allow that economy to grow. But it’s not—it is not the sole

element.

And the other two titles of your bill are equally as important to

helping the State of California continue to grow its economy

through the development of the infrastructure needed, principally

storage and conveyance to have reliable adequate supplies of water.

Mr. CALVERT. Any other comments?

Mr. GUY. I will echo what Mr. Birmingham said in large part.

In my comments I focused on two particular pieces. One, of course,

was empowering regional solutions and the other is investment in

infrastructure. It seems those two sections of the bill are absolutely

essential and really provide the foundation to do exactly that. So

I think they are absolutely imperative parts of the bill. We’ll do everything we can to make them work.

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. I would echo that sentiment. Adding that

CalFed isn’t the only environmental restoration program in the

state that needs funding, so this provides an opportunity for that

as well. The state system has lost a valuable commodity I think

called flexibility by virtue of all the mandates and the limitations

placed on the operations of the projects.

These two other sections of the bill will help in adding in particular local capability to be more flexible and creative on how they

manage and operate their systems. So it’s a very much needed part

of the bill.

Mr. NELSON. We look at our solutions, as I said earlier, in the

context of eliminating the gap that we have between supply and

demand. And although CalFed establishes and stabilizes where we

are within that gap and helps us close that gap somewhat, it

doesn’t nearly come close to helping us close it all the way. And the

other two sections of the bill, we look at those as being opportunities to assist us in moving toward the closure of that gap.

Mr. HERRICK. I would just like to say that we agree encouraging

local projects and funding that federally is a good idea, but the

practice is the 800 pound gorilla of the Federal Government agencies destroyed it all. CalFed had a redact council referenced earlier

that came up with numerous pages of recommendations and said

thank you.

The government agencies didn’t take any of that into consideration. They trumped everything that the local people wanted.

The issue of ecosystem restoration, very few people come out

here and say we shouldn’t help the environment, but again your intentions get perverted in practice. We have an environmental water

act that says let’s buy some water and release it for fisheries so we

can protect exports. They put a condition on the barriers that protect my client that say you can’t use them if environmental water

is in the system. So in order to protect a certain amount of exports

150

and fish you slit my clients’ throats. That’s what happens. That’s

what’s going on right now.

So you guys have to decide how you get these good intentions implemented without the lunacy of the bureaucracy in between you

and me destroying everything and they are doing it. Excuse me for

being— Mr. CALVERT. That’s why we’re trying to fix it.

Any other comments, Mr. White?

Mr. WHITE. The opportunity for these—this new yield that we’ve

been discussing, you know, restoration along a river, let’s say, is an

opportunity to provide water flow for restoration purposes, but on

the other end of that there are other beneficial uses that can be

used as a conveyance system at the same time.

There are other opportunities if we look at it in the right way

and some of these comments relating to the regulatory agencies is

right on line.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Condit.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks all of you for

your testimony here today. It’s appreciated. It’s not like I haven’t

heard it before. I appreciate it very much.

I’d like to kind of get into the gap analysis. The gap analysis assumes a 70 percent supply. What does the gap show if there’s a 50

percent supply and what if you had 100 percent supply, is there

still a gap? You need to kind of help us understand that.

Mr. NELSON. I don’t have the specific numbers in front of you,

but I think off the top of my head, if we had another 20 percent

decline from the 70 percent supply, that would equate to another

3, 400,000 acre feet. We’re talking about 1.9 million acre feet in

total here and so I would—it would just increase that gap. Of

course, we had a 50 percent supply of where we are today. Even

when we had 100 percent supply, that’s about 1.9 million acre feet

and along with the sustainable yield in groundwater that’s been determined, we would still have to be out on the transfer market to

be able to meet the needs and the needs that are anticipated

through the year 2025.

In fact, in history when prior to the 1990’s when we had 100 percent supply, in many years we had what was called interim water

available which actually supplemented our 100 percent supply to

the region, so we were able to get up and above 100 percent supply

in many of the years prior to 1990 and many years took advantage

of that.

And so we’re looking—70 percent supply doesn’t get us out of the

woods. What it does is it provides a baseline for us from which

we—a reasonable baseline from which we feel that we can get better and along with the other provisions of the act be able to become

sustainable.

So 70 percent supply by no means meets our needs. However, it

does provide a reasonable baseline from where we are today from

which we can get better.

Mr. CONDIT. If you have 100 percent, you still have a gap?

Mr. NELSON. That’s correct.

Mr. CONDIT. I guess that’s the point I want to make.

Go ahead, Mr. Moss.

151

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Congressman, I’d like to add to that. Prior

to 1990 in the ’80’s there was active consideration of how we were

going to split up the balance of the CVP yield of some 1.2 million

acre feet that was left over in the project, hadn’t been allocated yet.

One of the main projects being considered was the Mid Valley

Canal Project, which would have brought water into the middle of

the Central Valley and served a million, million and a half acres.

To take this additionally, why? Because the region suffers from a

chronic groundwater overdraft.

We already have an existing need that is beyond our supply that

manifests itself as groundwater overdraft to the tune of half a million to a million acre feet. That’s not counting the shortages they

have on the West side because they have a limited access to that

supply. From a regional standpoint we started this debate in the

’90’s water shortage and it’s only gotten worse and worse.

Mr. CONDIT. Can you fill the gap with—you mentioned water

transfers, conservation, land retirement, underground storage,

pumping, whatever, Mr. Nelson?

Mr. NELSON. We look at the sustainable yield and it’s been— we’re learning more and more about what the sustainable yield is

for groundwater in the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. And

it’s probably noteworthy that groundwater banking opportunities

on the West side are pretty limited. We have both geologically and

water quality-wise the groundwater availability is just kind of spotty in both quantity and quality. So we have a very limited access

and limited opportunities to be able to—to develop the type of conjunctive use that we even have down in Kern County.

So those types of opportunities aren’t available to us, but what

we do plan to do is to identify and maximize the amount of sustainable groundwater that we can use each and every year and that

would be a couple of hundred thousand acre feet.

Congressman, in the question can we use conservation and

groundwater and transfers to eliminate the gap? Absolutely. And

we’re using those on a daily basis. I will say that the numbers that

I have presented to you have already taken into consideration the

sustainable yield in groundwater and a very—and an assumption

of a very, very high level of conservation and efficiencies, and so

they are already assumed that we’re going to be doing those things

in the analysis.

Mr. CONDIT. This question is for Mr. Nelson and Mr. Birmingham both. I’m a strong supporter of the assurances provision

of the bill. I think it’s important. It is my understanding that this

provision can be accomplished without impacting other water

users.

Do you have a different viewpoint? And from your point of view

would you please describe for me the provision whether it can be

achieved without impacting other water users or not?

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I think the answer to that question is an absolute yes. Mr. Herrick observed that to provide the 70 percent supply to CVP contractors south of the Delta, it’s necessary to take

water away from others. And that simply is not correct.

As Mr. Nelson said in his testimony, it is possible to operate the

Central Valley Project in a manner that is—that achieves the objectives of the three statutes, Federal statutes that Mr. Nelson

152

identified, the Clean Water Act, CVPIA and the ESA, and at the

same time achieve a more reasonable balance in terms of water

supply.

The Department of the Interior has a tremendous amount of discretion in the way it operates the project and implements those

three laws. And to date over the course of the last 10 years, the

discretion has been exercised in a manner that reduces rather than

increases water supplies, but within the existing regulatory baseline, discretion can be exercised in the manner that would easily

achieve a 70 percent supply in a normal year. I want to emphasize

that.

We’re talking about a 70 percent supply in a normal water year

and it can be achieved without doing unreasonable harm to the environment and without taking water away from any other water

agency and without degrading water quality.

Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Nelson, do you have anything to add to that?

Mr. NELSON. No. It’s certainly our intent that this be accomplished without impacting another water user in the state.

Mr. CONDIT. My colleagues have been generous with the time. I

have one additional question for Mr. Guy.

I agree with you that we must advance the infrastructure project

and streamline the regulatory process. Could you please update us

on the use of the progress of Sites Reservoir in Sacramento Valley

and provide specific information of why the streamlined regulatory

process is so important. I think we kind of get that, but I’m not

sure everybody in the room gets that.

Mr. GUY. Thank you, Congressman Condit, for the question. For

most of you Sites Reservoir is located on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, about ten miles west of the town of Maxwell and

it was one of the projects that was identified in the CalFed Record

of Decision.

What the CalFed Record of Decision stated is that CalFed would

join with local partners in evaluating the feasibility of the project

and in doing the environmental review. In fact, that is what is

being done at this time.

There is an MOU that was completed late last year between the

Department of Water Resources, the Bureau of Reclamation, several of the fishery agencies, and then several of the local water entities, probably about ten of the local water entities, to move forward with this process.

And what is happening right now is that we are getting a handle

on what the work that has been done by the Department of Water

Resources on that particular project, hopefully the environmental

review and the feasibility work for that project will begin in seriousness later this summer. There will be scoping on the environmental part of the project and the feasibility work will begin.

I am pleased to say that—partnerships, as everybody knows, are

challenging and difficult. I think all in all the partnership between

the local agencies and the CalFed agencies are so far working pretty darn well in the Sites Reservoir situation and we are hoping to

meet the CalFed target of completing the environmental review

and having the permitting completed by the summer of 2004.

That’s pretty ambitious at this time. But that’s the goal of the

CalFed decision and we’re ready to make that commitment.

153

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to my colleagues. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you mention

the possibilities of establishing or re-establishing a fishery below

Friant Dam? If that’s possible, would that take additional water,

which I assume it would? If you’re talking about that gap between

Friant and Merced River, where would the water come from? Are

you going to build another dam? Are we going to raise the dam?

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. CalFed contemplates new San Joaquin storage. In our studies we’re looking at any additional source we can

find to meet that water need, because it will be significant; in the

order of 200 to 600,000 acre feet in an area that’s already water

short.

Friant Dam and Millerton Lake has storage capability of 385,000

acre feet of active storage on a river that annually produces about

1.9 million acre feet. It’s too small for the watershed behind it. So

we think new surface storage to capture the peak runoff, reregulate

it, and allows us to put it into our underground long-term storage

has some real potential to generate a significant chunk of that new

yield that’s going to be needed.

CalFed is beginning the studies. The Bureau of Reclamation is

putting together with us a Memorandum of Understanding to begin

a study of new San Joaquin River storage. It’s a delicate process

given that we are in a program and a process with our new environmental partners of studying where the water is going to come

from.

We don’t want to get out in front of that process in pushing new

storages being the only solution when in fact we know it won’t be.

It will require water transfers. It will require again more conjunctive use, possibly tying into other watersheds with the conveyance

to be able to move water around and bring more water into the region.

Mr. RADANOVICH. With regard to the assurance language on the

bill, Friant, have we worked out the disagreements there? I think

is—

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Well, we’re attempting to. Quite frankly,

Congressman, I’m not sure they can be worked out. We’re giving

it a shot. We share the concerns expressed by Mr. Herrick as to

having greater definition of where the water will come from in

order to provide this assurance.

It’s difficult given our needs for river restoration. It’s difficult

being the only other part of the CVP, south of the Delta, that could

possibly be impacted by a Federal mandate to provide a certain

water supply. So we’re very anxious about how that process goes

forward and the answer to your question is no, we have not come

to closure yet on that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to state for the record, too, my original

motives for being so strong on this reliability issue was to prioritize

urban and ag interest over the environmental interests at least

until we get to the point where we can accommodate them all,

which I am fully supportive of. I’m sorry it’s gotten to problems like

this, but I think—to me it all boils down to if we can’t put human

needs above the environmental needs on a temporary basis until

we get more water supply, then I think we’re doing something

154

morally wrong here. I hope we can work this language out and

move it forward.

Dan, I want to ask you a question. Should we begin a study in

this CalFed—in this bill land retirement in Westlands, possible

purchasing of land to make up for the contract deficiencies historically?

Mr. NELSON. I think that there are definitely opportunities

through this bill to take a look at that. Let me take on the broader

issue, if I may.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming broadly acknowledged that land retirement is going to be one of the components necessary to bring

sustainability on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. I look

at primarily as a result of a water supply situation in it, but there’s

also some drainage issues of course involved, too.

The land retirement program is going to have to be a very thorough program, and as Dr. Sablan had mentioned, is going to have

to take into consideration all the third party impacts, and it is my

sense that CalFed could be a useful form for some of the discussions on that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You mentioned 70 percent shortfall of about

800,000 acre feet in your area of the state.

Can you translate that acre foot number into acres of production?

Mr. NELSON. In the analysis, they use about 2.3 acre feet per

acre and so the 800,000 acres would be what, about 350,000 acres.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you were still—if you had 100 percent, what

would be the land then that you would still be short to farm on the

water?

Mr. NELSON. If you’re talking about geographically, where is that

land, I would assume it would be in the upper portion of the San

Luis unit.

Excuse me, Congressman. That’s where their allocation per acre

even in their contract supplies is much less than other areas of the

CVP.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would that include land in Westlands as affected by the nonopening of the drain, the 50,000 acres that’s tied

up in the lawsuit?

Mr. NELSON. I imagine there would be a component of that, but

most of the land that I was referring to that has a short—an allocation that is less than the other areas is in another region, in the

plains.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. I do have more questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. Dooley.

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch

again on the Chairman’s language and how we work through this

because it’s absolutely critical.

In the ongoing discussions that, Mr. Moss, you’ve been having

with Mr. Birmingham and others, in the language that you are

suggesting, especially in terms of some language that refers specifically to cost, is that there will not be any adverse impact also in

cost.

I guess I’m a little bit concerned that if you do have something

in that nature and does it also though preclude what might be a

155

decision to move forward with projects to increase yield and supply

that might in fact have an increased cost associated with that that

we would think would be a good investment because of the benefit.

How are we to assure that we wouldn’t have an adverse implication in being able to increase yield and supply if we have this language in the bill?

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Very good question, Congressman. There’s

great concern about cost of water. And as you well know, the cost

in the Friant Division of CVP supplies as a result of new contracts

and CVPIA have meant an increasing cost of 1000 to 1500 percent

over the last 10 years. That cost was very difficult for the districts

to deal with, but nonetheless they have.

The CVP is integrated from a cost standpoint. And one of our

concerns is that if the—if there is a major expenditure to try to

find additional water supplies to meet this assurance, that our

grower—our growers would not be the beneficiaries of that additional water, they don’t want to have to pay the additional cost.

Heretofore, before the contracts were renewed, contracts were on

a fixed-rate basis and that there wouldn’t be any change in cost to

other contractors as a result of new projects being added and those

kinds of things. But ever since 1986 and the passage of legislation

that required a full repayment of OM costs and the repayment of

all capital costs by the year 2030, the CVP is taking on another direction.

Mr. DOOLEY. I understand that. I’m concerned with the potential

negative impacts if you have something in this. Even from the

Friant perspective— Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Our growers would love to be able to support

a new project that they can see new benefits.

Mr. DOOLEY. Let’s play this out a little bit, though. In terms of

some of the Cross Valley contracts and some—that provide some

benefit to Friant, if you do have increased yield that goes to south

of the Delta to meet the 70 percent assurances, it could have significant impacts even on some of the availability and costs of water

that might be benefitting Friant.

And if you have this provision in there, my concern is, are we

setting the standard that actually can have a negative impact,

maybe not just simply on the contract price of the water, but on

other water that’s being accessed by members of your unit?

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Again, I don’t think so. If there’s a benefit

to be derived to my growers from additional water supply, they are

willing to pay for it. There’s nothing in the bill that precludes them

from doing that and in coming to an agreement that they are in

fact being benefitted.

Mr. DOOLEY. Wouldn’t this language, though, preclude an investment by—

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Why?

Mr. DOOLEY. If it had a—

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. All it says in providing this assurance that

it wouldn’t cost anybody more money that isn’t being directly benefitted by the program. I don’t see where that provision would necessarily preclude my growers or other growers who are actually

benefitting directly as a result of providing more water to being

able to pay for it.

156

Mr. DOOLEY. I hope we can do that. I guess, Mr. Nelson or Mr.

Birmingham, if you have any comments on that.

Mr. NELSON. One of the dilemmas we have with the cost provision is that historically the CVP has been based on a postage

stamp rate. Essentially this would stray from the postage stamp

rate cost allocations that the CVP has historically been.

My sense is that’s opening a very large can of worms not just for

meeting the 60, 70 percent supply component of this legislation or

the 70 percent supply, but it also has implications on any future

CVP projects. I guess the biggest concern we have is that we think

there are large implications in how it is that we’ve been allocating

costs throughout the last 50 years that the CVP based on this language.

Mr. DOOLEY. It’s unfortunate we’re not going to have the opportunity to respond to some of the questions that’s going to be carried

in the next panel. I’d just like to read you a statement from Nick

DiCroce from California Trout.

It says—talking about the potential water savings. They are talking about the 10 percent increase of price of water to agriculture,

which they indicate to be 1.20 to 4.20, anticipated by one study, 3.2

percent decrease in water demand. And they contend that that 3.2

percent reduction would apply to agriculture’s current usage of

more than million acre feet is a reduction of more than one million

acre feet per year. ‘‘At those rates, a modest 10 percent reduction in agriculture

water usage for a relatively small increase in the price of water

would theoretically solve the state’s predicted shortage of 2.9 million acre feet by the year 2020 with water left to spare for urban

growth and river habitats.’’ I guess what they are contending is that if we had a 10 percent

increase in the price of water, that we would solve our water supply needs. I appreciate any comments you might have.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. With the Chairman’s permission, I’d like to respond to that. The suggestion that is being made raises a very fundamental question. That is, are we going to solve California’s water

problem by eliminating agriculture as an industry in this state?

That’s a—the fundamental question.

The premise for the suggestion is that increased costs will lead

to increased conservation. As Mr. Nelson has already indicated,

farmers in the San Joaquin Valley have almost exhausted the opportunities for conservation. There may be some room for additional conservation, but not much more.

And so the question is, shall we take agriculture out of

California’s economy and rely entirely on industrial uses of water

or should we continue to maintain ag?

And that is one of the fundamental benefits that we see from

H.R. 1985 is that the balanced implementation of the CalFed program will help sustain agriculture, because from our perspective ag

is a vital component of our economy and produces benefits well beyond the food and fiber that we all enjoy as a result of it.

For instance, the question I would ask is how much oxygen is

produced by all of the orchards that exist up and down the San

Joaquin Valley and I would submit it’s—that there is a benefit to

having agriculture production in the valley that is an environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
157

mental benefit. The use of land for agriculture is a valuable resource.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are

more directed to the issue of salinity. I think I need to know from

either Mr. Herrick or from somebody else that might be able to answer is where does most of that salt come from? Where is the major

portion? Is it Federal lands? Is it due to the farming areas of—go

ahead. Of course, that leads to the issue of the saving of the BayDelta.

The sanitation district in the Los Angeles County has a project

with the beach where they are pumping recycled water to help

maintain the salt water intrusion. Could that be used to be able

to help maintain the flow? Those are questions—would that hurt

the restoration of the ecosystem? Those are questions that kind of

beg answers in my mind.

Mr. HERRICK. That’s a huge can of worms and I’ll see if I can address that briefly. First of all, reuse of water in various areas is

a very good idea. We encourage the government to try to promote

greater self-sufficiency in lots of areas. But when you go upstream

of the Delta and try to conserve water or redirect it for other purposes, you simply decrease the downstream of flow. So if some municipality of farmers upstream decrease the amount of water that

they have that drains back into the river or into the underground,

somebody else gets less.

So when you decrease a flow upstream, then New Melones Dam

has to release more fresh water in order to meet the salinity standards in the Delta.

Now, the soils on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley

these gentlemen are more better able to comment on them than I

am. But the Central Valley Project by importing or exporting water

from the Delta takes water of 200 to 400 tds in terms of salt, which

is a measure of salt and salinity, and takes that down to the valley.

If those areas got the water out of the river like they previously

did, I’m not saying they should do that now, if they did, that water

was extremely good quality water. That was a hundred or less tds.

When you import 200 to 400 tds water and then consume a large

part of it, which is what plants do and that’s fine, you have concentrated the salt. The plants don’t use the salt. So although there

are salts and things like selenium in the grounds down there, the

problem is that you keep importing tons and tons of salt.

My testimony mentions the raw numbers. It’s a million tons, not

a hundred million. That’s a huge amount of salt that’s just gathering down there. Some of it gets back down there and that’s what

causes the salinity of the rivers problems, because it comes in tremendous concentrations, so that comes back into the river.

The issues about saving the bay we don’t think are quite well focused, because they say don’t you let that salt go down to the bay

and flush out, don’t give us your problem. That salt came from the

bay. Now it should be at the right concentration, get out and we

have to address that problem. It’s the same salt.

The selenium that comes out of the foothills down there, historically that just made its way to the river and went out the ocean,

158

too. Now, if we’re going to increase the way that happens and the

concentration, that’s one thing, but you can’t collect it down there.

You have to get rid of it some way.

Now, the salt to our purposes is the bigger problem because that

constantly harms my clients, but you have to be able to get rid of

it. And there’s all sorts of ways we can do this. We would support

the other gentleman here that talk about the promises of the Federal Government that went unfulfilled regarding the drain. You

have to do something. To say they should keep their salt is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much of the land usage is lost to salinity? Can anybody answer that?

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. In Westlands today because of inadequate

drainage there are approximately 15,000 acres of land that have

been taken out of production. We estimate that there are approximately 250,000 acres of land in Westlands that ultimately will require drainage.

You’ve heard discussions about a land retirement program. We

are involved in discussions about the potential retirement of some

of those lands to deal with the drainage issue. It’s important for me

to point out, however, the lands within Westlands that have drainage problems do not drain to the San Joaquin River. Salts imported

to Westlands don’t make their way back to the river because

Westlands doesn’t discharge drain water outside of its boundaries.

The question becomes how to deal with the drainage problem.

The retirement of the land, as Mr. White suggested, is not going

to in and of itself solve the drainage problem on the West side of

the San Joaquin Valley.

People talk about the West side of the San Joaquin Valley and

some people think that refers to Westlands. In fact, the West side

of the San Joaquin Valley refers to the entire area from Tracy all

the way to Bakersfield to Kern County.

Land retirement is potentially one element of a means of dealing

with drainage, but there will have to be additional studies and additional measures taken to deal with drainage in other areas that

are not retired.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there a threat that future utilization of

these lands may be threatened by the increase of salinity usage of

that irrigation—increased water in that irrigation water that’s

being imported?

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. Absolutely. As water with high concentrations

of salt are imported, unless the water is drained, the water and the

salt accumulate within the soils and ultimately the salinity accumulates in the soil and will eliminate the productivity of those

lands.

That’s why within Westlands there have been lands that have already been taken out of production because they are incapable of

growing crops.

Mr. White is an expert on this subject. If you have specific questions, I would encourage you to direct them to him.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think all of you should answer them because

I think this affects everybody. I think the reduction of water plus

the salinity is going to affect the agricultural industry in

California. So if you don’t put that into context and I think we’re

159

missing the boat in that particular area because it’s all in one. It’s

not separate from.

Mr. WHITE. Congressman, could I add a little something?

Mr. CALVERT. Final comment and then we’ll go back around.

Mr. WHITE. Various agencies are looking at areas in the San Joaquin River. They are tinkering around with water quality discharge

limits and so forth. The thing you must understand is that the better water quality is available in bigger quantities, so as you try to

restrict water, let’s say you set a standard at 500 tds for discharging into the river, there’s a lot of 550 part water that you’re

going to take out of the system, you’re going to make the downstream water quality worse.

It’s not an easy problem that can be solved with a regulatory approach. The solutions are facility type solutions, not regulatory. We

can turn into a—very quickly into a spiralling type situation with

water quality.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Explain who would be able to go clean up the

discharge.

Mr. WHITE. Some of the projects that are offered up in the

CalFed authorization, and to the extent that there’s new yield in

the system, this can be used in the riverine system for environmental benefits and as well as for water quality benefits.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. EPA is mandating some of the sanitation districts to even treat groundwater runoff in Southern California, so

expect something to happen along those lines. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Go through another round very quickly.

Mr. Nelson, I have a question very quickly. How much water has

been shifted in the last 10 years from water contract users for

other purposes? Do you have an approximate number?

Mr. NELSON. Yes. It’s well over 1.5 million acre feet with both

the state and Federal contractors.

Mr. CALVERT. 1.5 million acre feet?

Mr. NELSON. That’s annually by the way.

Mr. CALVERT. Now, we’ve heard numbers in normal years that

we need about an additional six million acre feet of water in order

to meet the needs of the various water contractors and environmental demands that are being placed within the system.

Would this panel agree that that’s approximately the right

amount of additional yield that we would need in order to meet the

all those requirements? Any comments on that?

Mr. HERRICK. I’ll comment and say I don’t know. It’s impossible

to get six million acre feet in any term that you’re considering.

Mr. CALVERT. What is possible, Mr. Herrick?

Mr. HERRICK. That’s a tough one. I have a disagreement with the

rest of the panel members about what water is available now. If

there are ways to reoperate Shasta and the Delta cross channel

pumps to get more water, we would encourage that. Transfers don’t

do that. Transfers take somebody’s water for money and cause

third party impacts. I hope I’m not digressing too much. Let me

just say one of the ways they are trying to get additional supplies

is to go in the tributaries and buy surplus water.

A good example of that happened in this last December where

they purchased from Merced Irrigation District, so the water came

160

down in December instead of summer power releases. That water

was pumped across the Delta at a time when diverters on Middle

River had no water.

When you decrease the summer flows from Merced, you put an

incremental additional obligation to New Melones to meet water

quality standards in the summer. So that can be described and is

described every time we fight it as no third party impacts, but it

does have third party impacts.

Again, I’m sorry, I’m the crazy cousin that nobody would like to

look at in these kind of things. But it’s accomplished in a manner— and I’m not blaming these gentlemen here. I’ll blame the Bureau

of Reclamation. It’s accomplished in a manner that I describe as

cheapening.

If the Bureau wanted to buy more water from wetlands down in

the valley and bought it itself and had the state pump it, which

they didn’t have surplus pumping capacity, then a limitation on

pumping kicks in, which was set forth. That limitation is what

on—the feds using the state’s pumps. That limitation protects my

clients.

So they needed this water for the wetlands, the Bureau did, so

the Bureau paid the seller to temporarily change its point of diversion from the Merced River to the state pumps. So Merced Irrigation District was diverting water to state pumps instead of at its

dam. When you do it that way, those limitations on export pumping don’t apply.

So if you describe it—don’t do anything differently, but describe

it differently, the protection to my clients evaporates and we complained about that and the answer was, well, if you describe it that

way, we don’t have to protect you.

So anything you come up with here, somebody will twist and

bend and cheat because I submit there isn’t any extra supply out

there.

Now, there are ways of getting incremental benefits from doing

this and changing that, I agree with that completely. There are

ways to do it. But any significant amount of water is simply a reallocation in type and place. If you can do that with those wet time

of year flows, wonderful, we’ll back you up all the way. But that’s

not how it happens.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Condit.

Mr. CONDIT. I’ll be real quick. Mr. Birmingham made a comment

about the action plan that Governor Davis and Senator Babbitt

signed and you made a reference that it was sort of totally ignore.

I know a lot of people in this room and a lot of people across the

state from all the interests were involved in that process. Why is

it being ignored and who’s ignoring it?

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I know, Mr. Condit, that you were intimately

involved in the discussions that led up to the execution of the

Framework for Action as were a number of other Members of Congress and Senator Feinstein.

What is stated in the Framework for Action is unambiguous. It

states that in normal years the CVP contractors south of the Delta

that have been disproportionately impacted by recent regulator actions should receive an increased supply of 15 percent to a 65 or

a 70 percent allocation.

161

When that document was executed, we as affected parties were

told that in developing the Record of Decision, we would be able

to participate, as would all interested parties, including municipal

water users and environmental water users, to insure that that

promise became real.

Well, the Record of Decision was prepared by the Federal agencies and the state agencies that make up CalFed and we were told

that because of the process, we would not be included in developing

the Record of Decision.

And when the Record of Decision came out, there were new provisions concerning the operation of the projects under biological

opinions obtained in connection with the Record of Decision that

suggested to us that it would be very difficult for the projects to

be operated in a manner to accomplish the improved water supply.

So the specific answer to your question of who’s ignoring it, I

would say bluntly, it’s the Fish and Wildlife Service and it is the

National Marine Fisheries Service. The projects can be operated in

a manner to protect listed species. It’s vitally important to us that

those species be protected. Our water supplies aren’t really going

to begin to improve until the environment is restored. That’s why

we think it’s critically important that H.R. 1985 mandate be a balanced approach. Our water supplies aren’t going to improve until

the environment improves. That’s important.

But the discretion that was exercised by Fish and Wildlife Service, and hence in developing those biological opinions, created a tremendous amount of ambiguity and uncertainty concerning the ability of the CVP to affirm the framework made in the action.

Mr. CONDIT. So the action plan was basically ignored administratively, there was an administrative fix that could have happened,

but didn’t happen? Is that what I understand you to say? I don’t

want to put words in your mouth.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I don’t want to say it was totally ignored, but

I would say it was manipulated.

Mr. CONDIT. Don’t you think—I’m sorry, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. NELSON. I’d like to expand on that a little bit and it goes

back to what Mr. Herrick said earlier.

On a policy level I think there was full intent and full expectations that this 15 percent up to 70 percent would be done. However, the translation between that policy discussion and those policy agreements from the folks actually out in the field making the

operational day-to-day decisions got lost. And so—although it

wasn’t ignored maybe by those policy folks that made that commitment, it certainly was—the commitment was made in such a way

that allowed the regulatory folks to ignore it entirely and it was

ignored. There was no consideration of that 15 percent when coming up with the operations for this year’s supply.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. As an example, the initial forecast of operations developed by the Department of the Interior 2 months after

the Record of Decision was signed, or 3 months after the Record

of Decision was signed, said that if the next water year is a normal

water year, CVP contractors south of the Delta will get 45 percent

of 45 percent supply. That was immediately after execution of the

Record of Decision and I know that there was a lot of pressure put

on the Department of the Interior at the end of the last administraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
162

tion to fulfill the promise that was made in the Framework for Action.

Mr. CONDIT. That’s my point. I thought it was pretty phenomenal

that you had Governor Davis and Senator Babbitt sign that had

some security for you guys to get your allotment of 70 percent. So

I was just trying to figure out where it fell off the chart. You’re saying administratively. That’s what I understand.

Mr. NELSON. Yes.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. CONDIT. Let me just make one other point. I think Mr. Birmingham makes an excellent point. Actually, I think the State of

California and the Federal Government has to decide whether the

agricultural is going to be in business in California. I think that’s

how crucial water policy is here is whether or not we survive.

We make reference to the West side, people do think I’m talking

about Westlands when you said west side, but the west side is a

whole region of the State of California that produces a tremendous

amount of the economy for California, the agriculture of California.

If we continue with this policy where we have land retirement

or you don’t get your allocation, you’re down to 45 percent or what

have you, from your point of view, you guys, some of you work in

these small communities on the West side, what happens?

I mean, we used to talk about a thing called plant closure and

force companies who were going to close down plants to do some

sort of compensation to employees for a month or a year or what

have you. This is quite a controversial issue.

My perception is if you wipe agriculture out in California, you’re

going to end up with plant closures. You’re going to end up with

a whole region of the state with no economy. You already have a

massive problem with unemployment.

In your perspective, you guys work over there, live over there,

what do you think happens if we continue down this path of no

comprehensive water policy that keeps agriculture strong in

California?

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. We are on the verge of a collapse of the agricultural economy on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. As

you say, that goes well beyond Westlands. That is not an exaggeration. It isn’t due totally to inadequate water supplies. Low commodity prices, high cost of energy plays a part in that.

As Dr. Sablan very eloquently stated, when farmers and farm

workers and businesses people hear in December that next year if

it’s a normal year, you’re going to get a 45 percent supply, farm

workers leave and no reasonable businessman is going to want to

invest the money necessary to develop and maintain plants in the

area.

We’ve already seen the failure of processing plants. I mean, the

best example is Tri-Valley Growers last year. And again, you can’t

lay that entirely at the feet of inadequate water supplies, but inadequate water supplies and unreliable water supplies certainly play

a major role in the failure of that cooperative.

Mr. CONDIT. Dan, I know you’re over there.

Mr. NELSON. Just simply put, the rural economies are based entirely on agriculture and agriculture—the sustainability of agriculture is entirely based on a sustainable supply. So taking away

163

that supply obviously just guts the economy for a wide group of

rural communities and those dependent on them.

Mr. CONDIT. David.

Mr. GUY. If I could just add, too, there’s also a west side of the

Sacramento Valley that is in much the same predicament in that

they received 60 percent of contract supplies this year. They also

receive water from the Central Valley Project. Not to rehash things

that have already been said, but I think everybody’s aware of the

agricultural crisis.

I think what you’re seeing is increasing pressure upon the water

managers to make sure that one particular input, being water, is

just that much more reliable and that much more affordable.

And that’s again going back to the bill, why I think these investments in infrastructure and empowering regional solutions are so

important so that we can try to maintain and sustain that agricultural and rural economy.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Radanovich.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the issue of reliability, I somehow think that this has gone from setting statewide

priorities while we’re in a short term or while we’re in a low supply

period and setting standards or priorities until we get into enough

supply that we can satisfy all the needs of water in California and

somehow has gotten to an issue that is strictly for Westland’s own

water supply.

I’m kind of discouraged at the fact that it’s come to that. To me

it’s a reliability issue for all the needs, human needs of

Californians throughout the state.

Is there a way to get it off of strictly a Westlands issue or a

Westlands/Friant issue and get it back to a statewide priority

issue?

Somebody had mentioned the fact that there was plenty of flexibility in the agencies that implement DSA, CVPIA, and some of

these other standards so that there might be flexibility enough to

meet these needs.

Is there a way we can get that flexibility down in law so we get

this being off a Westlands and/or a Westlands/Friant issue and set

it—get a statewide priority system that puts urban and ag uses

above environmental issues on a temporary basis so we can get to

a supply point to meet the needs of all?

Do you have any questions, Tom, because I’m frustrated that it’s

gotten to this point. I really am and it shouldn’t be that way.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I agree completely. I have heard people say

and the people that say this are misinformed, that—I don’t think

they are misinformed, I know they are misinformed. That the

shortages are being imposed on the West side, AKA Westlands, because that’s the most recently developed area. They are the newest

contractors. That’s just wrong.

First, Bill Harrison who is the general manager of Del Puerto

water district who is in the audience, they were one of the first contractors in the CVP. Del Puerto Water District is also on the West

side. San Joaquin Valley is suffering from the same shortage as is

Westland.

164

Mr. RADANOVICH. Tom, then, how do we get reliability into this

bill so that it works for everybody in California rather than being

a Westland issue?

In my mind it is not only California is short of water and it will

be until we get additional supply. We’ve got to figure out a way to

make this thing work without it looking like California’s agriculture is eating each other up and this issue is going to go down

the tubes.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I think one solution to that is by mandating,

that none of these uses—when I say these uses, I mean municipal

use, agricultural use and environmental use has priority. The

CVPIA—as I said in my comments, one of the purposes of CVPIA

is to achieve municipal balance. Unfortunately, that was interpreted by the last administration as giving environmental usage a

priority.

All of the work that has been done to date in the CalFed program has been to restore the environment. Maybe that was appropriate, but we are at a point now—and I think this is what you are

saying. We are at a point now where we have to accomplish benefits for the other CalFed purposes in addition to restoring and enhancing the environment. That means implementing the program

in a way that accomplishes a balanced implementation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I applaud the fact that you’re working together. You guys are doing good. But rather than coming up with

language that’s going to satisfy both Friant and Westlands in this

thing, can you come up with language that satisfies the state in

general and really goes toward the reliability issues that I want to

see that I think most of the rest of Californians want to see? Is it

possible to come up with something like that?

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. The answer is yes, and we would look forward

with working with you and your staff to come up with that kind

of language.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I’d love to see it.

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Not to be a wet blanket, but you can’t think

of a more complicated system of water allocation and water priorities than the California water law system. I don’t think there’s any

appetite—at least I’ve never seen any appetite on the Federal front,

especially in this Committee, to preempt California water law and

California water rights.

Beyond that, there is an established set of priorities as to how

the project gets operated. We just had a very recent court case

which again reaffirmed the priorities, if you will, to pump water to

Tracy by Exchange Contractors that was trying to be upset and

overturned.

So you have to be very careful when you come in and try to overlay a Federal mandate that’s going to set—upset, potentially upset

existing priorities of operations and existing law of both on the

state and Federal level by just a broad brush priority system.

I’d be glad to work with you on it, Congressman. I’m not sure it

can be accomplished.

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. It won’t surprise you, on this issue I disagree

with Mr. Moss. I don’t think it’s a matter of imposing Federal law

on state water law. I think it’s a discretion of describing to Federal

165

agencies how they should exercise discretion in implementing Federal statutes. That is one of the purposes of Congress.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I guess I would like to leave it as being—if you

could help me with a priority system for a reliability system for

California urban and ag water uses rather than something strictly

for Westlands, I’d like to work on that.

Mr. NELSON. Just a brief comment. Again, this 70 percent provision isn’t strictly for Westlands. There are— as has been noted

quite a few times, there are 24 other ag service CVP contractors

south of the Delta that are experiencing the exact same shortages

and the exact same restrictions as Westlands.

The 70 percent supply was the—and the assurance of the 70 percent supply was as a result of a broad acknowledgment by everyone

from Governor Davis to Senator Feinstein to Congressman Condit

to actually anyone that’s involved in California water that there

has been disproportionate impacts as a result of redistributing

water over the last decade from water uses to environmental uses,

that there have been disproportionate—

Mr. RADANOVICH. That’s the way it started a year ago. Now metropolitan water is calling up and saying we’re not sure this is very

good in weighing on behalf of the urban community and I’m saying

it’s not necessarily going to benefit them. Now you’ve got problems

with Friant even in the agriculture community.

What I’m asking you to do is come up with something that works

for all of urban and ag water uses in the state that will also serve

Westlands’ needs as well. Otherwise we’re going to have problems.

Mr. NELSON. We are committed—and we thought that the language accomplished the increased water for the west side of the

San Joaquin districts while not impacting anybody else and we

thought we had come to closure on that particular part of it and

that’s our intent. And we’re committed to continue working toward

making sure that the legislation assures this while not impacting

anybody else.

[Discussion held off the record.]

Mr. DOOLEY. I guess again a little bit of frustration in representing the area which is arguably having some of the highest

levels of unemployment in the nation that associated impacts in

terms of some of the highest incidence of childhood poverty and

highest incidence of teenage pregnancies and the lowest rate of

health insurances being offered, which is all attributed to the state

of economy.

When we’re dealing with public policy issues here in terms of—

there’s some groups out there that are going to testify on the next

panel that we don’t need additional supply which would contribute

additional yield—advocating a policy that we can have what sounds

like a very modest proposal in terms of a 10 percent increase in

water prices which is going to be $1.20 to $4.20 cents acre foot as

they testified, that that can be the future needs of the state’s water

usage.

In spite of the empirical data that you can rely on rather than

theoretical projections they are making in terms of what they faced

in the last 10 years, what has been the increase in water prices

that you folks have faced?

166

What has that contributed to increased supplies and, Dan, you

talk, and what has been the percentage increase that you’ve seen?

Mr. RICHARD MOSS. Well, we’ve seen increases in our water rates

for our Class I firm supply from $3.50 acre foot up to I think it’s

right about $38.00 acre foot. Class II went from—which is the

unstorable wet season water that we use for groundwater recharge

from $1.50 up to $25.00. There has been no reduction in water use

as a result of those increase in costs. There’s been a lot of money

taken out of our local economies as a result of that, but not a decrease in water use. We have some of the highest efficiencies in the

world. Where water shortage is already, we have lots of incentives

to use our water as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Mr. DOOLEY. What are the relative increases that you’ve seen?

Mr. NELSON. Those numbers are fairly comparable. We do have

some areas up to 60 or 70 dollars per acre foot. The other point

that’s probably noteworthy here is not only do we have increased

costs on the CVP water we get, but we’re also being chronically

short. We’re out on the water market every year. That gets up into the $150 range per year.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. We’ll take a 10-minute break and we’ll

introduce our next panel.

[Recess.]

Mr. CALVERT. We’ll be introducing our third and last panel.

While they are coming forward, I have a couple of announcements

to make.

First I’ll introduce them, Mr. Ryan Broddrick, Director of Conservation Programs, Valley/Bay CARE, Ducks Unlimited; Martha

Guzman, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Susan

Redfern, landowner; and Mr. Nick DiCroce, Member of Board of

Governors, California Trout.

I would like to submit for the record a list of endorsements that

we just received, including the Association of California Water

Agency, Associated General Contractors of California, Bay Area

Council, California Building Industry, California Business Property

Associations, California Business Round Table, California Chamber

of Commerce, California Council of Manufacturers Technology Association, California State Council of Labors, Valley Industry and

Commerce Association, State Water Contractors, Southern

California Water Committee, Orange County Business Council,

Northern California Water Association, Mountain County Water

Resources Association, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce,

Central Valley Project Water Association, and Cal-Nev Conference

of Operating Engineers.

If no objections, we’ll submit these for the record.

[A letter submitted for the record by California Action on Water

follows:]

167

168

169

Mr. CALVERT. Welcome, thank you for coming out today and if

you weren’t here, we have a 5-minute rule. We try to stay within

that for testimony so we can allow plenty of time for questions.

You’ll see a green light, then a yellow light, 1 minute remaining,

and then the red light comes on.

With that, Mr. Broddrick, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF RYAN BRODDRICK, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, VALLEY/BAY CARE, DUCKS UNLIMITED

Mr. BRODDRICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. I provided

written testimony. I’ll just try to highlight a few key points to stay

within the time allotted.

I am the Director of Conservation Programs for Ducks

Unlimited’s Western Regional Office. That regional office was established in 1987. Prior to that time Ducks Unlimited invested primarily in Canada to ensure the conservation of the continental waterfowl population.

I think the parallel is in the mid ’80’s the Central Valley of

California was recognized as critical to the conservation of waterfowl and Pacific Flyway. Up to 60 percent of all the waterfowl, and

I’m not just referring to those that are ducks and geese, but to

shore birds as well, reside in this Central Valley during the annual

migration. So the Central Valley and the water security for that

Central Valley and how we meet the challenges of water security

in the Central Valley dictate essentially the health of 60 percent

of the Pacific Flyway.

The Flyway obviously does not have a similar status of endangered and threatened species that some of the salmon and native

fish enjoy. That should not be a criticism. That should be a succeed

statement.

The issue as it relates to water security in California and why

Ducks Unlimited’s mission is absolutely tied to California’s water

future is the wetlands and the wetlands we manage, associated uplands, the riparian habitat and all the environmental benefits associated with wetlands are tied directly to the managed agricultural

irrigation system in California. Whether it be Northern California,

Central California, both the Sacramento component, the San Joaquin component, much of what the public and private wetlands of

this state are dependent upon managed water.

So security of that water, the ability to have water both for aqueduct and terrestrial resources, the ability to have water to be introduced into the wetlands during that peak migration when we have

8 to 12 million waterfowl visiting this state, that is an obligation

by the way to provide habitat to them—whether they are hunted

or not, that is a habitat issue. That is why we are here testifying.

The questions you raised with respect to what has contributed to

the declines or to the conflicts we currently have, obviously we focussed in the testimony earlier and then today probably over the

last decade of issues, CVPIA, CalFed, the Bay-Delta Act, the BayDelta Accord.

Certainly those were—if those documents in the CalFed Record

of Decision and the framework established in August haven’t identified the challenges and opportunities for California, there is no

170

other document that’s more definitive. I think that has been established for us.

I think the issues of fisheries dominating how and where we use

environmental water has been merely a function and I don’t want

to trivialize this—dramatic declines in fisheries from the ’70’s, Federal Endangered Species Act on some anadromous salmonids and

delta smelt, cause and effect relationship was very easy to establish. Water was a common habitat issue.

The state and Federal water projects were the easiest and most

direct response to reduce those declines. That’s not to trivialize how

complex that is, but it’s certainly the sum total of where we are

today.

We have established in the CalFed process, both the science program and environmental water account program a variety of balance components that resulted in the Record of Decision in August.

From Ducks Unlimited’s viewpoint, our wetlands values and our

mission is limited to wetlands values understanding those are a lot

broader than just ducks that are best served as nested underneath

a broader restoration plan and absent investing in water security,

whether it be surface storage, groundwater use, additional groundwater use or conjunctive use, we will have a drought. When we

have that drought, there will be demands for water in a crisis mode

and my greatest fear and my experience of history will suggest that

fisheries and waterfowl and wetland dependent species in a crisis

will lose, so we need to invest now, whether it be surface supply,

additional groundwater storage, make decisions, implement the

CalFed Record of Decision in a balanced fashion that requires capital.

And I urge your support. Thank you for the opportunity to testify

to that. We need implementation that requires Federal and state

leadership in critical Federal funding.

The prepared statement of Mr. Broddrick follows:]

Statement of Ryan Broddrick, Director of Conservation Programs,

Valley/Bay CARE, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

Introduction

Chairman Calvert, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to speak before you today. I am the Director of Conservation Programs for Ducks

Unlimited’s Western Regional Office, Valley/Bay CARE Initiative in California.

Ducks Unlimited was founded in 1937 by concerned and farsighted sportsmen and

conservationists. It has grown from a handful of people to an organization of over

800,000 members. At the inception of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., and for many years

thereafter, the focus in waterfowl conservation was protection, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands in the Canadian prairie breeding

grounds.

In 1984, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., while maintaining financial support for continued

conservation in the breeding grounds of Canada, recognized the increasing need to

secure wintering and breeding habitat within the continental United States. The

Western Regional Office of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. was opened in 1987 in recognition

that California was critical to maintaining the health of the Pacific Flyway. The

Central Valley supports up to 60% of the total duck and goose population of the Pacific Flyway. On a continental scale, the Central Valley provides a wintering home

for 100% of the world’s population of Aleutian Canada Geese; 100% of the Pacific

Tule Geese; 66% of North America’s Tundra Swans; and up to 65% of North America’s pintails. It is important to note that California has lost approximately 95% of

its historic wetlands and currently cereal grain agriculture provides a large seasonal

offset to the loss of historic wetland habitat in meeting waterfowl forage needs.

Since 1987, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. in California, has worked through partnerships

on private and public lands to enhance, restore, and protect approximately 205,00

171

acres of wetlands and 23,500 acres of associated uplands at a cost of over $60 million. Much of this work to date focuses not on large net expansion of wetland acreage (approximately a 45,000 acre increase that DU has participated in) relative to

historical wetlands, but rather insuring that wetland values are enhanced biologically and improved operationally with respect to water management.

Waterfowl are not the only beneficiaries of Ducks Unlimited, Inc’s habitat work.

Wetlands improve the overall health of our environment by recharging and

purifying groundwater, moderating floods, reducing soil erosion and providing recreation. The wetlands, riparian, upland, and agricultural lands that provide habitat

for waterfowl, also provide essential habitats for hundreds of other wetland dependent plant and animal species, supporting over 50% of California’s threatened and

endangered species during some stage of their life cycle. The majority of seasonal

wetlands critical to support peak winter migratory waterfowl and shorebirds in the

Central Valley, whether public or private lands, are dependent upon managed

water. The same reservoirs and conveyance structures that provide water for agricultural, urban, and industrial use, provide water for managed wetlands, two thirds

of which remain in private ownership. In a similar fashion the seasonal wetland

benefits of rice and other cereal grains in the Central Valley, play a critical role and

once again are dependent upon managed water.

The mission of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. is to fulfill the annual life cycle needs of

North American waterfowl by protecting, enhancing, restoring and managing important wetlands and associated uplands. The Ducks Unlimited, Inc. mission, combined

with the goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), which

is to rebuild waterfowl populations to the levels of the 1970’s, necessitates our involvement in the work of this subcommittee related to Central California Water

Security- Opportunities and Challenges.

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. fundamental role is making habitat improvements on the

ground. Uncertainty and indecision with respect to water reliability risks progress

made to date, and frustrates intelligent conservation strategies for the future.

Factors Leading To The Challenges Facing California Today

The vast over simplification, is that the Central Valley Project developed in the

1930’s, and the State Water Project developed in the 1960’s, were developed to meet

project purposes for a state with roughly a third of the current population. Those

project purposes did not include societal values reflected in mandates such as the

National Environmental Protection Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, Federal

Clean Water Act, California Environmental Quality Act, California Endangered Species Act, or the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Reconciling the conflict is further complicated by the reality that much of the ecosystem capacity has

been dramatically altered long before the respective water projects were completed,

making the challenge of ecosystem restoration as a response to individual species

recovery a difficult task. Of the hundreds of species of wildlife in California that

have attained threatened or endangered species status, it was relatively easy to

identify causes of direct and indirect mortality for anadromous salmonids and delta

smelt. The declines were dramatic, the common habitat demand was water, and

modification of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project operations was

the principal response to reverse the declines.

Actions and Measures Taken to Improve Water Supply, Quality, and Reliability

From a wetlands perspective Ducks Unlimited, Inc. has focused on the following

components that attempt to improve water supply, quality, and reliability in both

direct and indirect fashion.

• Improve water use efficiency through state of the art survey and design of wetland enhancement and restoration projects while still maintaining habitat diversity.

• Develop alternate water supplies including the use of wells, recognizing that

ground water may improve flexibility in maintaining wetland values and moist

soil management.

• Improve fish passage by working to develop fish screening projects and water

management strategies that contribute to fisheries recovery while still maintaining habitat values for wetland and terrestrial species.

• Continue research to refine our understanding of the biological needs of waterfowl and wetland dependent species.

• Establish GIS interactive models that assist in making land use and conservation decisions, and ranking relative priorities with respect to wetland conservation investment. (Refer to attachments for examples)

• Integrate wetlands restoration into the broader mosaic of ecosystem restoration

that provides benefits for wildlife while at the same time contributes to flood

172

control, improved water quality, conjunctive water use, and maintenance of

wildlife friendly agricultural lands.

It is obvious that the ability of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. to accomplish the above actions is dictated by much broader and complex public policy decisions related to agriculture, environmental restoration, and water reliability.

From an on the ground habitat restoration perspective, the influence of the endangered and threatened species provides opportunity for habitat development

consistent with our mission, while at the same time often creates indecision from

partner agencies related to implementing actual habitat improvements as we attempt to meet competing habitat needs. By necessity, the decision making process

is longer and more expensive. Opportunity for biological disagreement seems to increase in an exponential versus linear fashion as habitat species preferences are

added to the desired habitat outcome. Accordingly, an over arching multi agency organization such as CALFED and specifically the components related to Ecosystem

Restoration Plan and Science Program provide the opportunity to reach agreement

in a more timely fashion and proceed with the on the ground restoration.

For highly managed seasonal wetlands of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley, the availability (quantity, quality, time, and duration) of water is the critical

component to not only flooding seasonal wetlands for the fall migration, but also

meeting the diverse habitat needs hundreds of resident species and other migratory

non game species that require the upland and riparian habitats so often associated

with wetlands. Absent a reliable water supply, these habitat values cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the commitment made to refuge water supplies (including private wetlands in the Grasslands Water District) contained in the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act, Section 3406(d) have been critical to wetlands conservation.

Additional Measures or Assistance Needed In Short, Mid, and Long Term To

Improve Water Security

To provide a context for the additional measures or assistance needed, I think it

is important to recognize the progress that has been made to date. The establishment of Central Valley Improvement Act, Bay–Delta Accord, and CALFED–Bay

Delta Program in the last decade identified the challenges and opportunities. Investments in ecosystem restoration from CVPIA restoration funds, Bay–Delta Act, Category III, State Propositions 204, 12, and 13 provide an unprecedented investment

in resolving the accumulated conflicts of our current level of development.

The most dramatic progress has been in improving salmonid fish passage with the

screening and/or consolidation of diversions, removal of barriers, and in stream flow

improvements. This progress was possible because landowners and water agencies

recognized that enhancing salmon survival improved the reliability of their water

supplies by addressing the risk of regulatory intervention disrupting delivery and

substantial public funding made improvements a good business decision. I believe

this dynamic must be replicated across the CALFED program areas to insure continued improvement. The Environmental Water Account (EWA) is another example

of development of a tool that would have never occurred absent the CALFED process. EWA provides an alternative to strict regulation that is adaptable to the realities of water supply and biological needs. It needs the opportunity to prove it’s utility as an effective tool. It is important to recognize that the CALFED record of decision developed during a period of time uninterrupted by prolonged drought and before the effects on water supply are realized in meeting contractual limits from the

Colorado River.

The following, we believe are important to consider in developing water security,

while at the same time improving ecosystem function and insuring environmental

benefits.

• Recognize that without a commitment to continue the process of identifying additional surface supplies, it will be very difficult to overcome the hesitancy of

landowners and water agencies to innovate and enter into partnerships to provide environmental benefits.

• Approach surface water supply development with the objective of incorporating

carryover capacity to help meet water demands for agricultural, urban, municipal, and environmental needs, for the predictable drought cycle that inevitably

occurs in California. For in Delta and/or south of delta storage, provisions

should be considered to insure that CVPIA, Section 3406(d) water supplies for

refuges and Grasslands Water District be included to provide long term flexibility, assurance of supply, and integration with regional water management.

• Approach existing and new conveyance capacity as a tool to not only provide direct delivery and delivery to storage, but also provide flexibility in exchanges

173

and transfers which incorporate environmental benefits that serve regional

urban, municipal and agricultural needs.

• The future of wildlife in California, as across the nation, is inseparably tied to

actions undertaken on private lands. In the Central Valley, agriculture remains

the dominant use on these lands. It is our view that conservation of agricultural

resources provide significant additional opportunities for developing seasonal

wetlands, associated uplands, and riparian corridors that can provide multiple

environmental benefits. This opportunity can only be realized if agricultural

interests can undertake partnerships as a prudent business decision that compliments their core business, rather than compromises it.

I offer this testimony from the perspective that the mission of Ducks Unlimited,

Inc. as it relates to the Central Valley, is inseparably tied to implementing a comprehensive water plan that addresses competing needs. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. applauds Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee for conducting this

field hearing and urge your continued leadership in this critical endeavor.

[An attachment to Mr. Broddrick’s statement follows:]

174

175

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Guzman.

STATEMENT OF MARTHA GUZMAN, UNITED FARM WORKERS

OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO

Ms. GUZMAN. Good morning. My name is Martha Guzman. I’m

a legislative analyst for the United Farm Workers of America,

AFL-CIO. I’m also the technical researcher for the California Safe

Drinking Water Program which is an EPA water program that has

targeted over 20 communities in the Central Valley from Fresno to

urban.

We are here to give a perspective of how a reliable water supply

impacts farm workers. We heard earlier from Dr. Sablan and others of the direct relationship that exists between farm workers and

agricultural production, that without farm workers we would not

have the industry that exists today.

But the inverse exists as well, that without the resources of land

and water for the ability to produce there can be no demand for

labor. Farm workers are undeniably directly impacted and integrated by any changes in the agricultural production.

As you continue to examine the needs for this reliable source of

water, we ask that you examine a little deeper into why—what the

reason is for this reliable source of water. For the UFW a reliable

water supply is essential for a sustainable agricultural industry

and a necessary component for sustainable agriculture is having a

sustainable income and a sustainable—and a standard of living for

workers that allows it to function and prosper.

We are committed to the Constitution of California that requires

the beneficial use of water for the right to use the water. This beneficial use of water means providing a benefit to the economy, the

environment, the land, air, and more importantly the workers in

the communities that are impacted by its use. The beneficial use

of this public resource is also found in Federal law.

In the late ’30’s and early ’40’s with the Central Valley Project

there was the intention to embrace the concept of using water as

a tool for fostering sustainable development by providing water to

family farmers with the previous limit of 160 acres.

The concept of providing water for the—providing environmental

and economic sustainability for our communities must continue to

be a driving force behind Federal and state water policy.

The United Farm Workers is currently involved with the CalFed

Bay-Delta program and was instrumental in putting environmental

justice requirements and guidelines in the Record of Decision.

The guidelines for these projects are put in place for programs

and for specific projects before they are completed and before they

are authorized.

There are various ways that communities can be adversely and

positively impacted from these water projects and programs. They

range from the potential increased health risks from a wetlands

project in the Delta, on the community that subsides off of a contaminated fish population, to the socioeconomic impacts on rural

communities from either a guaranteed water supply to contractors

or an ecosystem restoration project.

176

The United Farm Workers is committed to working with CalFed

and our elected officials to ensure that our quality water supply is

used to foster sustainable community development in the Central

Valley and look forward to providing some friendly amendments

through some of our congressional friends.

The prepared statement of Ms. Guzman follows:]

Statement of Martha Guzman, Legislative Analyst, United Farm Workers of

America (AFL–CIO)

The direct relationship that exists between farm workers and the agricultural industry is mainly defined by the worker’s contribution on the field and in other areas

of production and processing. Without farm workers we would not have the vast agricultural industry that exists today. The inverse is true as well, without the resources in land and water for the ability to produce there can be no demand for

labor. Farm workers are undeniably directly integrated and impacted by changes in

agricultural production.

As you continue to examine the needs for a reliable water supply in the Central

Valley we ask not only that you recognize the intrinsic relationship that farm workers have to agricultural production, but also to reflect deeper on the ultimate reason

for attain reliable water supply. For the United Farm Workers a reliable water supply is essential for a sustainable agricultural industry and a necessary component

of sustainable agriculture is having a sustainable income and standard of living for

the workers that allow it to function and prosper. We are committed to the Constitution of California that requires the beneficial use of water for the right to

water. The beneficial use of water means providing a benefit to the economy, environment, land, air and the workers and community impacted by its use. The beneficial use of this public resource is also found in Federal Law. The Central Valley

Project was intended to embrace the concept of using water as a tool for fostering

sustainable development by providing water to family farmers (160 acres) throughout the Valley. The concept of water providing environmental and economic sustainability for our communities must continue to be the driving force behind federal and

state water policy.

The United Farm Workers in conjunction with the Environmental Justice Coalition on Water continue to work with the CALFED Bay–Delta Program on the goals

and guidelines established in the Record of Decision (R.O.D.) issued August 28,

2000. The R.O.D. requires that every Program include community outreach and participation, guidelines for project proposals and requirements to factor in the community impacts of a project or program before receiving funding or authorization. There

are various ways that communities can be adversely and positively impacted from

water projects and programs. They range from the potential increased health risks

from a wetlands project in the Delta on the communities that subside off of contaminated fish to the socioeconomic impacts on rural communities from either a guaranteed water supply to contractors or an ecosystem restoration project.

The United Farm Workers is committed to working with CALFED and our elected

officials to ensure that a reliable water supply is used to foster sustainable community development in the Central Valley.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Redfern.

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE REDFERN, LANDOWNER

Ms. REDFERN. Good morning. Chairman Calvert, and other members of the Subcommittee, particularly those of you who have traveled such a long way on this early Saturday morning, I would like

to thank you for holding this hearing here today and for introducing H.R. 1985, which we strongly support.

My name is Susan Redfern and when I say that we support your

bill, I’m speaking for Redfern Ranches, a family farm situated in

the Dos Palos Flyway area on the West side of the San Joaquin

Valley.

177

My father Floyd Redfern started out farming in 1927 growing

corn on a rented 160 acres with a Case tractor, which we still have.

Over the next 30 years of boom and bust, he managed to accumulate the 13,000 acres we’re farming today. We grow cannery tomatoes, garlic, onions, peppers, almonds, prunes, cotton, berries,

grapes, alfalfa, hay, sugar beets and various grains. Our work force

ranges from 40 to 70 people and we have an annual budget of

about nine million dollars.

Today I’ll try to briefly describe the challenges we face since the

passage of the CVPIA. I speak for Redfern Ranches as well as for

the other farmers in the four Federal districts which serve our

lands because I think we’re all facing the same dilemmas and I’m

sure that we’ve all just about exhausted our resources trying to

survive them.

I will try to tell you what the challenges are. I’ll summarize the

various investments we’ve made to adapt to our changing circumstances, try to articulate why despite our best efforts we’re still

in an unsustainable situation and to explain the unexplainable,

why we’re still out there farming.

Since the CVPIA we received 100 percent of our full allocation

only once in a flood year when we were already drowning. In other

years we received as little as 25 percent. This year we’re getting

45 percent. In most Federal districts 45 percent translates to about

an acre foot per acre. Crop requirements are about two and a half

acre feet per acre. So to compensate, growers must either pump

groundwater contributing to serious overdrafting and subsidence,

try to purchase costly supplemental water or fallow.

The most visible of these options is fallowing and the one which

most deeply impacts the local economies. In Redfern Ranches we

were forced to fallow about a thousand acres every year due to

water shortages. It’s estimated that 20 percent of the ag land surface area is fallow this year. By extrapolation how much prime ag

land will I fallow during a drought? What will be the repercussions

of this agricultural brown-out on the people it puts out of work and

on the communities they support? How will it affect the annual

Fresno County gross farm income of three billion dollars and the

state’s fragile economic condition?

Along with the problems created by our reduced water supply,

we’re plagued by the lack of certainty of that supply from year to

year, which makes it impossible for us to plan and to finance our

operations.

In preparing for the next year’s crops a farmer starts working his

land as early as August and so needs to line up his crop financing

by early fall. By December he will have invested at least one-third

of the total cost of growing his crop in land prep, preirrigation and

weed control activities. By the end of January he will have made

commitments to rent pipe and other equipment and made substantial deposits to his water districts.

He can estimate his inputs down to the dollar, but he won’t even

get any preliminary estimate about how much water he can put on

that crop until February. And he won’t get anything he can hang

his hat on until May when the crops are already in the ground. No

wonder lenders are balking. Why should a banker take a risk on

a crop that might die of thirst in the middle of July?

178

Few would dispute that west side ag has been put under enormous pressure since the passage of the CVPIA, but some have

asked what we’ve done to adapt to these challenges. Farmers are

resourceful by definition. My neighbors more than most. We’re trying to manage to its fullest every resource, whether natural,

human, mechanical or economic.

In the last 10 years at Redfern Ranches we’ve invested one and

a half million dollars into sprinklers, surface pipes, drips and portable booster pumps. Other efforts we’ve made to increase water use

efficiency include hiring a water soils manager, using farm wide

leveling, employing on-farm recirculation and reuse and hiring outside consultants to evaluate irrigation and pump efficiencies.

Besides these on-farm measures, we’ve supported all district and

regional efforts to maximize water savings, such practices as tiered

pricing, canal lining, drain water recirculation and reuse and drain

water treatment research.

Finally, the whole area has made major shifts in cropping patterns with the goal that each acre foot of water we use would go

into production of a high value crop. Redfern Ranches has gone

from 4,000 acres of cotton to 1500 and installed over 500 acres of

orchard and prunes. However, the price of installing and operating

orchard crops in drip irrigation is enormous.

We are also putting off road and ditch maintenance and weed

control. We’re not replacing equipment and vehicles. Essentially

just deferring what will catch up with us. Until CalFed can give

all of us assurances of water quantity, none of us can afford to continue to invest in more high-tech irrigation and drainage.

You may wonder why under such grim circumstances we’re still

out there farming. From a practical standpoint it doesn’t make

much sense. It’s more than a practical matter, not only in our operations, but also in our way of life and in the well-being of our employees and our communities. Many of us have deep roots in the

area. When my father died at age 98 in 1993 I was advised to sell

the ranch, pay the estate taxes and live worry free. I couldn’t do

it.

The nine million dollars our ranch sent into the local economy

every year may sound like small change from an urban perspective,

but it’s the lifeblood of small rural towns. They depend on our

ranch and others like it as do our employees, most of whom are

with us for many years. This summer we have three generations

of Joe Munozes on our payroll. No one at Redfern Ranch is paid

minimum wage. And all regular employees and their families at

the present are provided health care coverage at no cost.

We value these human resources as highly as any other and it’s

in their interest as well as our own that we keep at it, but we are

tapped out.

And so, Chairman Calvert, we look to you and your Subcommittee for relief. We believe that H.R. 1985 can offer us such

relief. We’re firmly in support of the bill for the following reasons:

First, we understand that California’s water wars will continue

unabated until larger environmental problems are addressed.

H.R. 1985 will provide the funding and authorization the BayDelta program needs to tackle those issues.

179

Second, we believe it’s unreasonable to solve one sector’s problems on the back of another and trust that the provisions of 1985

will correct this inequity.

Finally, we feel that H.R. 1985 will provide the assurances that

CalFed will restore certainty to water deliveries to agricultural contractors. That’s certainly what we need in order to continue producing food and fiber in the nation’s most productive ag region.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

The prepared statement of Ms. Redfern follows:]

Statement of Suzanne Redfern, President, Redfern Ranches, Inc.

I. BACKGROUND:

A. Salutation, thank you, self-introduction.

B. Redfern Ranches—history, crops, employees, water supply sources

II. DILEMMAS FACING WEST SIDE FARMERS as result of CVPIA:

A. SUPPLY SHORTAGES, leading to fallowing

B. SUPPLY UNCERTAINTY, creating planning and borrowing problems.

C. WATER COSTS increased, compounding higher fuel and power costs and

low commodity prices.

III. WESTSIDE FARMERS’ RECENT EFFORTS TO ADAPT TO THESE CHALLENGES (using Redfern Ranches as the model):

A. On-farm water efficiency measures (drip installations, sprinkler and

gated pipe, additional personnel, ecirculation systems, laser-leveling)

B. District Wide Efficiency Measures we’ve supported (Tiered pricing, drain

water reuse, drain water treatment research, canal lining)

C. New cropping patterns we’ve initiated to increase dollar value of products created by each acre-foot of water applied (almond and prune orchards, tomatoes, onions, garlic, peppers, seed crops replacing traditional

cotton/alfalfa/sugar beet rotation)

IV. WHY WE’RE STILL HERE:

A. The financial investments we’ve made in efficiency measures and permanent crops.

B. The emotional investment, responsibility to our employees, communities,

heritage, belief in the land and its ability to feed people and provide for

us.

V. WHY THE PRESENT SITUATION IS UNSUSTAINABLE (summary):

A. Insufficient water means fallowing, inability to support operations,

overheads, workforce.

B. Uncertain supplies, late Bureau announcements make planning and financing arrangements impossible.

C. Increasing costs of water along with fuel, power, etc. erase profit.

VI. SOLUTIONS:

A. BAY DELTA process is our best hope to finding a truce in California’s

water wars. No stability to be had until the larger environmental problems are addressed, and Bay Delta is set up to address them.

B. One problem can’t be solved entirely on the backs of another segment.

We strongly support CONGRESSMAN CALVERT’S BILL and its practical, regional approach to restoring balance to water allocations.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. DiCroce.

STATEMENT OF NICK DiCROCE, MEMBER, BOARD OF

GOVERNORS, CALIFORNIA TROUT

Mr. DICROCE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

and present an alternative point of view from most who are here

today.

180

I am a member of California Trout, a statewide fisheries organization and we are members of the Environmental Water Caucus,

a group of local and national organizations focussed on CalFed and

California water policies.

California Trout shares a vision with many of the leading organizations that make up the Environmental Water Caucus and it is

a vision that we would like state and Federal legislators and water

planners to adopt.

The vision is that you view California water as a finite and sustainable resource, and that the currently economically wasteful and

harmful uses of California water needs to change. We believe that

your Committee is in a unique position to become a champion for

sustainable and efficient use of this critical resource.

There’s no question that California’s population will continue to

grow. We are blessed with a 60 billion dollar recreation and tourism industry that depends on healthy rivers, bays and beaches, and

we are blessed with an agricultural industry that feeds a nation

and accounts for more than 28 billion dollars to the state’s economy

and continues to grow even through drought years. However, we

would probably not be at this hearing today if all was well in this

nirvana that we call California.

Let’s take a look at some of the indicators that all is not well.

One, California now holds the prize for the largest number of endangered species in the country.

Two, California already captures, stores and uses 43 million acre

feet of water in a given year. That’s enough water to accommodate

a population of 200 million people. That’s just used as a middle

strength indicator.

Three, California ag now uses 75 to 80 percent of our water supply in a normal year. The water is provided at subsidized prices.

Much of it we feel is used in wasteful ways and on low value, price

supported crops.

Four, despite the obvious damage that has been done to our

California landscape and the huge amounts of waters being stored

and used, we still battle, we still sue, and we legislate over whether more of the same or—whether we’re going to do more of the

same or whether there aren’t some better ways to solve our issues.

We think we have some better ways and I will discuss them in

a moment, but first some pertinent observations. Water subsidies

are comparable to a drug habit in three significant ways. They

breed an insatiable appetite. It seems as though we can never get

enough. We’ve heard some of that today.

Secondly, there is little or no concern for the side impacts of the

habit. Thirdly, it breeds irrational actions. The most recent example of those irrational actions is Westlands’ current claim for San

Joaquin water is a perfect example of all three of those characteristics.

Another observation, it has always intrigued me that legislators

and others who are fiscal conservatives, and I put myself in the

category of a fiscal conservative, can continue to support water

pricing subsidies that have done so much to upset market economics and to breed inefficiencies.

In our belief that the state has already developed abundant

water supplies for our future and that the current supply needs to

181

be utilized in a more economical and sustainable way, we suggest

the following actions and overall directions for your Subcommittee.

One, required water conservation goals and plans for each of the

three main water users in place of the current voluntary programs.

Two, special programs and investments that will cause changes

in water use practices by agriculture, including reasonably graduated pricing structures and investment incentives on the use of

higher technology irrigation equipment where it’s applicable.

Three, gradual reduction and an eventual elimination of agricultural water subsidies which is a disincentive to the wise use of

water.

Four, establishment of a brokerage to facilitate market based

water transfers, market price water transfers, which can provide

some profit incentive to agricultural water rights holders that supply the water.

Five, a much heavier reliance on groundwater storage as well as

improved legislative controls on the use of groundwater.

And six, a CalFed sponsored, high priority program to improve

desalinization technology and make it available to urban areas for

future water supply.

With the Pacific Coast as our border it—and so much of the population in urban areas on the coast, it makes sense.

Compared with this vision described above, H.R. 1985, with all

due respect, Mr. Chairman, we feel is upside down and backwards.

On the other hand, the cumulative impact of the above steps can

provide California with enough water for the future and for

drought supply periods. It could enhance supply. It could make us

get well together. It could increase yield and it could be a more balanced approach and it would assure the continued growth of all the

sectors of California’s economy. Thank you.

The prepared statement of Mr. DiCroce follows:]

Statement of Nick DiCroce, Vice President, Board of Governors, and

Chairman, Board Conservation Committee, California Trout, Inc.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee and to present the

views of the organizations I represent. I am a member of California Trout, a statewide membership-based fisheries conservation organization that was established in

1971. Our mission is to protect and restore wild trout and steelhead and their habitats. Our organization has a track record of working cooperatively with state and

federal agencies and we have been instrumental in a number of significant actions

such as the Mono Lake decision. We are also members of the Environmental Water

Caucus, a group of local and national organizations focused on the issues of the San

Francisco Bay Delta and the Central Valley rivers connected to the Delta. The Environmental Water Caucus has been heavily involved in the CALFED process and

similar actions to restore the Bay–Delta and Central Valley habitats.

California Trout shares a vision with many of the leading conservation organizations that make up the Environmental Water Caucus, and it is a vision that we

would like state and federal legislators and water planners to adopt. The vision is

that you view California water as a finite and a sustainable resource, and that the

current economically wasteful and harmful uses of California water need to change.

We believe that your committee is in a unique position to become a champion for

sustainable and efficient uses of this critical public resource.

There is no question that California will continue to grow; our population is predicted to reach almost 50 million by the year 2020. Our state economy is now at

$7 trillion—the third largest in the world. The economic future of California will demand that adequate supplies of good quality water be made available to accommodate this growth and the growth of our largest industry—a $60 billion recreation

and tourism industry that is supported only by healthy rivers and bays.

182

California is blessed with an agriculture industry that feeds the nation and con- tributes $28 billion to the state’s economy. The agricultural industry is a significant

employer and has always been a significant influence in the state. Assurances that

water will be available to accommodate growth and that it will be available during

drought periods are vital to the industry—and we clearly recognize that all is not

well.

However, we would probably not be having this hearing today if all was well in

this Nirvana that we call California. Let’s take a look at some of the indicators that

all is not well:

1. California now holds the prize for the largest number of endangered species of

all kinds—one of the legacies of our past propensity to build large dams and

divert waters out of our natural ecosystems at a dangerously excessive level.

2. California already captures, stores and uses 43 million acre feet of water in a

typical year. This is enough water to accommodate—on a theoretical basis—a population of more than 200 million people.

3. California agriculture now uses 75 to 80% of our water supply in a normal year.

The water is provided at subsidized prices which allows it to be used in wasteful ways and on low value, price supported crops. It is obvious that changes

in water practices by California agriculture can be the key to our usage and

distribution problems.

• A few statistics will help make the case; Only 15% of California farms

use efficient drip technology, most of the remainder are using wasteful

flood and furrow irrigation, similar to what was done in the 1890’s; 60

percent of the total water is applied to three low-value subsidized crops— cotton, rice and alfalfa; rice-growing in the state evaporates more water

in a year than Los Angeles uses. Clearly these are not efficient or sustainable practices.

4. Despite the obvious damage that has been done to our California landscape and

the huge amounts of water being stored and used, we still battle, sue, and legislate over whether we need more of the same or whether there aren’t some better ways to solve our problems.

We think we do have some better ways, and I will discuss those in a moment.

But first some observations.

Water subsidies are comparable to a drug habit in three significant ways. They

breed an insatiable appetite; it seems as though it can never be satisfied. Secondly,

there is little or no concern for the side impacts of the habit. And finally, it breeds

irrational actions. The most recent example of those irrational actions is Westlands

current claim against their brother water districts for San Joaquin water, based on

a ‘‘county of origin’’ justification. If anybody has a county of origin justification, it

is Trinity County who provides all of Westlands’ Central Valley Project water.

Another observation: It has always intrigued me that legislators and others who

are fiscal conservatives—and I put myself in the category of a fiscal conservative—

how you can continue to support water pricing subsidies that have done so much

to upset market economics and that help maintain the current sub-optimal production practices.

State and federal water planners and legislators have a responsibility to address

this pricing issue. In the last California State Water Plan, agricultural water pricing

was relegated to four pages of an appendix near the end of the 775-page report with

the conclusion that the demand for agricultural water is inelastic and will not be

affected by the price. While that conclusion seems to fly into the face of logic, the

plan’s sample data allows a very different conclusion. According to the plan, a 10%

increase in the price of water to agriculture ($1.20 to $4.20 an acre foot in the Central Valley) produces only a 3.2% decrease in water demand. But that 3.2% reduction, if applied to agriculture’s current usage of more than million acre feet, is a

reduction of more than 1 million acre feet per year. At those rates, a modest 10%

reduction in agriculture water usage for a relatively small increase in the price of

water would theoretically solve the state’s predicted shortage of 2.9 million acre feet

by the year 2020—with water left to spare for urban growth and river habitats.

What would happen if the price of water for agriculture were to increase and approach something akin to a market price? Like most competitive businesses when

faced with increases in costs, the alternative is to become more efficient in order

to reduce other costs. The technologies are available and can be implemented with

favorable returns on investment. Since most of California agricultural production is

controlled by corporations that gross over $1 million annually, we can expect them

to make business-like choices that reduce the amount and cost of their water. The

elimination of the current rate of subsidized pricing would produce trickle down benefits for all: Gone would be the multi billion dollar costs to California taxpayers to

build dams and reservoirs to ‘‘develop’’ more water supply. Gone would be the need

183

for more water imports from out of state. Down would go the price of water for

urban users. And gone would be this outdated corporate welfare program for

California agriculture.

Changes of this nature require incentives. Urban areas have shown that they can

reduce water requirements by 30% when the pricing ‘‘incentive’’ is there. A baseline

charge with higher costs for usage above a baseline works in urban areas. It’s just

one of the solutions that could be applied to agriculture to cause efficient water

usage.

Major urban areas such as Monterey, San Francisco and Marin counties already

have shown that 30% reductions through water conservation are achievable; it’s an

embarrassment to Northern Californians that Los Angeles probably has the best

water conservation record in the state—using the same amount of water that it used

in 1972, despite a population increase of nearly 1 million people. It’s now time to

invest.

Perhaps you feel that I’m being too tough on California’s agriculture industry. But

California agriculture can be the real heroes in this situation. We have seen many

examples of farm operations that have achieved significant water savings through

modifications to their water use practices and they are well documented in separate

studies conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute. By enacting meaningful water conservation programs, the industry can improve their operations, improve water quality, continue their growth and profitability, reduce the harmful side impacts of their current practices, and bring an end

to the historic water wars of California. They could be true heroes and leaders for

both the state and the business world.

As I mentioned, our organizations have been closely involved in the CALFED

process. While we regard the CALFED Record of Decision as an imperfect solution—

especially the emphasis on increased water diversions out of the Delta—we are very

supportive of the ecosystem restoration and water conservation directions that

CALFED has initiated. We view the ongoing analytical process and the detailed examination of the costs and benefits of significant water projects as a necessary step

to arrive at solutions that will provide long-range solutions for all Californians.

In our belief that the state has already developed abundant water supplies for our

future and that the current supply needs to be utilized in a more economical and

sustainable way, we suggest the following actions and overall directions for your

committee:

• Required water conservation goals and accomplishments by each of the three

main water users—urban, agricultural, and industrial—in place of the current

voluntary programs. CALFED calls for an anemic 1% conservation goal for agriculture. Experience in both the agriculture and municipal sectors has clearly

proven that higher goals are achievable.

• Special programs that will cause changes in water use practices by agriculture,

including reasonably graduated pricing structures, investment incentives for the

use of higher technology irrigation equipment where applicable, and incentives

for fallowing marginal land during drought periods. Although CALFED plans to

invest $2.9 billion in ‘‘water use efficiency,’’ their investment doesn’t begin to

challenge the largest water user in the state.

• Gradual reduction and eventual elimination of agricultural water subsidies,

which is a disincentive to the wise use of water. The impact on food prices can

be minimized by the economic benefits of water conservation.

• Establishment of a brokerage to facilitate market priced water transfers. This

would allow the conserved water to be transferred to needy urban areas and

provide some profit incentive to the agricultural water rights holders that supply the water.

• A much heavier reliance on ground water storage as well as legislative changes

to place controls on the use of groundwater. California and Texas are the only

western states that have no controls on groundwater even though it is a large

part of the annual water supply. Groundwater storage is a far more economical

alternative and less damaging to our environment than the increases in surface

storage dams planned by CALFED.

• A CALFED sponsored, high priority program to improve desalinization technology and make it available to urban areas for future water supply, especially

during drought periods. With the Pacific Ocean as our border, desalinization is

too logical a solution to be crowded out by continuing our existing practices.

H.R. 1985, the Western Water Enhancement Security Act, does not fit with the

vision and actions described above. In fact, the authorizing of new and expanded

dams, the priority on delivery of subsidized water for Central Valley agricultural

contractors, and the lack of emphasis on ecosystem restoration will only perpetuate

184

the current institutional practices of California agriculture. Compared with the vision described above, H.R. 1985 is upside down and backwards.

On the other hand, the cumulative impact of the above steps would provide

California with more than enough water for the future and for drought periods.

They would assure the continued growth of all sectors of the state’s economy.

A similar positive vision is stated in a report published by the Pacific Institute,

entitled California Water 2020. It requires ‘‘...no significant new supply infrastructures to be built, nor any drastic advances in technology.’’ As also stated in the report: ‘‘No ‘‘heroic’’ or extraordinary actions are required of any individual or sector.

The changes necessary to achieve a sustainable water future for California can be

brought about by encouraging and guiding positive trends that are already under

way.’’ The current CALFED Framework, which calls for spending $8.7 billion over the

next seven years, has some of the elements described above. But the continued dependence on building more surface storage facilities to capture and export more of

our already over-committed water supply as well as the unwillingness to tackle the

unnecessary waste of so much water are major flaws in the plan. It dooms the state

to a continuous degradation of our natural environment at a time when it is more

important to its citizens and the state’s economy. It also presents the California agricultural industry with an opportunity to be environmental and economic heroes.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, I think. A couple of questions.

Mr. Broddrick, you brought up an excellent point. I was offered

the Chairmanship of this position, I thought about it long and hard

because I was Chairman of another Committee that I was quite

happy being Chairman of, but I knew that this was going to be

quite an interesting field to get into.

One issue you bring up that I think is very important, and we

can’t say it enough, is that we found out with this crisis that we’re

presently having with electricity, there are decisions being made

today that people a year ago or 2 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed

of making. Things that were absolutely opposite of their philosophical positions. I see it every day in some of the decisions that

are being made both in Sacramento and Washington.

If a crisis with water comes along, which could come along very

soon, we will start making decisions that obviously have the most

political impact, quite frankly, on the people who send us to office

and keep us elected. We don’t want to make those kind of decisions.

If a drought hits California or the West, we’ll be making decisions that would be, I think, unfortunate for the environment because we’ll probably put people first. So what we’re trying to do in

H.R. 1985 is to address those issues of additional supply and flexibility both for the urban and rural communities and for the environmental community.

Now, you’ve looked at the bill. Obviously you’re a well-known

conservation group. Would you agree that we’ve tried to move in

that direction to have a balanced approach to hopefully not have

these crisis management decisions?

Mr. BRODDRICK. Chairman Calvert, first I need to say thank you

for taking on this Chairmanship because when you’re getting into

California water, obviously it’s a tar pit that has had many victims

before. I hope that you are not one of them.

Mr. CALVERT. Me, too.

Mr. BRODDRICK. I think that what you’ve proposed is addressed,

frankly, in one of the underlying intentions that’s occurred for the

last 10 years. That is, are we going to provide water supply and

are we going to provide security for that supply? We have invested

185

in the last 10 years the—obviously with Federal and state appropriations huge improvements in our ecosystem restoration and I

don’t want to understate the need for additional improvements, but

if you look at what we’ve been able to accomplish for San Luis, the

Sacramento River, I think folks, whether it be ag or governmental,

should really applaud that progress.

I watched the ’97 floods. During those ’97 floods, as it should

have been, human health and safety drove all public decisions and

responses. I am convinced that if we don’t build on the success that

we have today from CalFed and from CVPIA, from category three,

from the investment of the ag and urban folks and we go into a

drought, as we had at the turn of ’87 through ’92, that we will have

dramatic impacts to our economy and to the wildlife.

Water and agriculture right now is certainly one of the components. I don’t pretend that Ducks Unlimited in its wetlands conservation issues comes anywhere close to touching the issues with

ag policy that are driving the economics in the valley, water policy

and the energy cost issues. Water’s certainly gone up. I can talk to friends that are telling me they are paying $180 a ton now for fertilizer that they were paying a $110 a ton last year

on commodities that aren’t at the same rate they are last year.

They are less.

So I think on private lands and agricultural lands in California

that essentially the private lands in California or Central Valley

that are ag related, that if we can’t get a marriage with existing

ag lands with improved water supplies and efficiencies and conservation, the message of—the mission of Ducks Unlimited as it relates to wetlands conservation and all that’s associated with it are

all going to be compromised. It compromises the Pacific Flyway in

total.

Mr. CALVERT. Miss Redfern, I want to thank you for putting a

human face on an industry that I think is important to our state.

I know that the computer industry is important, the entertainment

industry is important, the aerospace is important. The farming industry is still the largest industry in the State of California and

employs the most people in the State of California. And I think

that we have a responsibility to make sure that that industry isn’t

harmed any more than it already is being harmed.

I hear the various opponents of what we’re trying to accomplish

here say that we’re subsidizing the agriculture industry. I am a

conservative Republican. I think most people at this table would

probably agree with it. I think most people were surprised when

we put together a pretty aggressive bill to accomplish additional

water storage and delivery hopefully for California, for everyone,

for the environment, industry and so on.

But your industry is maybe—probably over the last number of

years is beginning to be the most controlled industry. When it

comes to Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act or the

EPA regulating pesticide usage, competition from outside the

United States, we’re not picking up our responsibility and promoting better trade policies where you can promote and deliver

California agriculture throughout the world.

And so I don’t apologize for trying to do what I can to keep agriculture viable in the State of California and I hope that you and

186

the people within your community hang in there because I think

it would be terrible if we lost a great industry and all the ramifications that would go along with that in this state, so thank you for

being here and I’ll now turn it to Mr. Condit.

Mr. CONDIT. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dooley has a time

problem, I’m going to yield to him and let him go first.

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you very much, Gary. I guess I took exception to Mr. DiCroce to some of your testimony that was printed

that you didn’t acknowledge. In part, because I’m beginning to be

increasingly frustrated with some of the myths and fallacies that

are continuing to be perpetrated.

In your written testimony it talks about a 10 percent increase in

water costs was going to solve a good portion of our problems,

which the empirical data has indicated otherwise.

Other parts of your testimony you identify that there’s a tremendous amount of waste to water that is occurring throughout the

state. I would ask you to go into the Westland Irrigation District,

the Friant Irrigation District where there has been a significant

number of studies by academic institutions that have demonstrated

that they are among the most efficient in the world and the level

of conservation that can be implemented there to increase more efficiencies is marginal at best.

And yet we have people that continue to try to create this perception that we can solve all of our problems by increasing prices and

by increasing conservation.

Even the issue of the water subsidies. Do you know what the

level of water subsidies are for the Friant and the Westland unit?

Mr. DICROCE. Significant.

Mr. DOOLEY. What are they? Do you know?

Mr. DICROCE. I don’t know exactly. I know the average price according to the central district water plan that farmers pay.

Mr. DOOLEY. The water subsidy that is benefitted by users on

the CVP is the interest that is foregone by the capital investment.

So our predecessors in Congress thought it was a good public policy

that we would have an investment in the development of the Federal Water Project and that that subsidy that we were going to provide at this time that you act like is so outlandish is that we

weren’t going to have to repay the interest on that capital investment. Every dime on that capital investment is being repaid by the

users. I don’t make any apology for that.

Furthermore, if it was just the water subsidy that was a problem, I have no confidence that if we eliminated the water subsidy

that you folks would be happy if we still got the same amount of

water.

The other thing I get increasingly frustrated with is I don’t know

how many people or part of your organization even yourself that

has visited some of the areas that have been so adversely impacted.

I’m a real Democrat when it comes to the social issues. When I

see the human suffering that’s occurring in my district and I have

people that do not think that it’s an appropriate public policy for

us to find a way to provide increased certainty of water delivery to

that region in order to maintain an economy to provide a better future for these children that oftentimes are low income, I get very

frustrated.

187

The reason why I’m taking exception to what you testified is because this is why we never solve the problem, by considering Mr.

Calvert’s bill that is supported by all co-sponsors is an upside-down

approach doesn’t do anything to allow us to move forward.

When there’s a lack of acknowledgment that water supply is

going to have to be a part of increasing the yield to meet the future

needs of the environment, which your membership is interested in

and also economic needs, I think does an injustice for the work that

we’re trying to do.

I apologize for getting a little bit angry here, but this type of approach doesn’t get us anywhere and I would hope that before members in your organization that are one of the leading ones in the

environmental community would understand and acknowledge the

facts because when we have the presentation of some of the past

arguments that have no substantiation, it doesn’t get us to an—to

a point where we can really solve our problems. I would be more

than pleased to let you respond just out of being—

Mr. DICROCE. I’ll respond to a number of your points, I hope. I

think the solutions and the recommendations that we have made

are the only solution that I have heard today that allows us to increase yield without the redirected impacts, which is a nice buzz

word in the industry. It allows us to do that. We feel that it is a

much more balanced approach.

I recognize that balance—the word balance is in the eyes of the

beholder. We also feel as though this is a more efficient and more

economical way to enhance and increase our supply of water, which

is what we would like to do.

I would also like to address the area that you brought up about

the price of water and its impact, the data about raising the price

of water a little bit and having it impact demand, having it reduce

demand is straight out of the state water plan, the last version of

the state water plan. The conclusions that were reached then I

take responsibility for. Those were mine that says, gee, if you increase the price a little bit more, you could generate 10 percent

savings. And if you could generate 10 percent savings, you would

solve our water supply problem. It’s worth the chance to try that.

Mr. DOOLEY. Excuse me. Did you acknowledge what Mr. Moss

said on the Friant unit as well as what Mr. Birmingham said on

the Westlands unit where the increases in the last 5 years have

been on the tune of at least almost 600 percent?

Mr. DICROCE. I’m not as familiar with that data. I’d love to see

it.

I think the last point that I’d like to respond to is that I come

from a background—a business background and my last 15 years

I spent with one of the global manufacturing organizations of the

world. We saw in the 1980’s and the early 1990’s American manufacturing relatively inefficient, relatively slow responding and so

on, having our lunches eaten by imports.

And in the ’90’s we changed an awful lot of what we were doing.

We became more efficient. We slimmed down. We cut costs. And

American manufacturing and the American automobile industry rebounded to where it is healthy. It continues to grow, it is profitable,

and it employs more people than it employed a decade or more ago.

188

We think that the same kinds or similar efficiencies in the agricultural industry can make heroes of the agricultural industry in

the same way that American manufacturing are heroes today in

our economy and we would look forward to that.

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Condit.

Mr. CONDIT. Since Mr. Dooley did so well, I’m going to let Grace

go next.

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

deferring, Mr. Condit.

One of the things that I keep hearing is everybody has specific

areas of interest. However, I have yet to hear anybody talk about

education of the populous on conservation and other areas that are

going to be critical, because it isn’t just one solution, it’s many solutions and we have to look for it.

In looking at those solutions I think we need to be more—that’s

one of the reasons I’m here is to learn how my neighbors to the

north feel about the water that they use and how we can benefit

by helping address the issues from this area through Mr. Calvert’s

bill.

I don’t know what we can do, like in farm areas, the farm workers, but I know that in schools we can begin to have our young children learn about water conservation, about better use of water in

homes, in factories, in many other areas. I don’t think we’re even

beginning to talk about that.

I have questions for some of you, but I defer back to Mr. Condit

and to the Chair. But it just seems to me that as one of the areas

we have not even begun to address is how do we not train people’s

long acceptance that you turn on the faucet, you have water.

Mr. DICROCE. May I respond to that? Los Angeles takes a bad

rap for lots of reasons, but in one area that Los Angeles has done

an outstanding job and that’s water conservation. The public responds when water conservation becomes an important agenda.

And Los Angeles in 1972 began to tackle water conservation and

water usage to the point where since 1972 with a population

growth of one million people they use the same amount of water

that they used in 1972.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I’m glad you brought that point up.

Mr. DICROCE. People will respond, they will.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think that all of us, special interest included,

need to work together and come up with solutions that are going

to be beneficial to everybody rather than attacking each other or

saying that that does not work. I think that’s just a challenge for

me is how to make it work.

Mr. DICROCE. I want the agricultural industry to be heroes in

this area.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I understand that. When I was in the

state legislature I was Chair of international trade, I continued to

support the outreach of my small businesses into foreign countries,

not to leave California, but to expand to everybody, be it Hong

Kong or Thailand, people looked to California product. We certainly

need to protect the workers that labor in the fields and also users

in California. I look forward to working with everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

189

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Condit.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to associate

myself with Mr. Dooley’s remarks as it relates to Mr. DiCroce. I

would invite you, if you have not, to take a little tour of the West

side of this area so that you can get an idea of what’s been done.

You make reference that you want agriculture to be heroes. I’m

telling you that the farmers and the farm workers in this state are

heroes in terms of the industry. They build a very strong economy.

We can compete with anyone in the world.

Mr. DICROCE. No question.

Mr. CONDIT. Anyone in the world. Just give us a fair shake and

we’ll do it. If you haven’t been, and I don’t know if you have or you

have not, you should make the effort to do it.

Mr. DICROCE. I will be happy to take you up on that.

Mr. CONDIT. I would also like just for the record to comment that

I know that the Committee extended invitations to some other environmental groups and RDC, et cetera. They are not here today.

Mr. DICROCE. RDC will be with you Monday in San Jose.

Mr. CONDIT. That is great. We’re here in the Central Valley of

California and agriculture where water is the lifeblood. We’re sorry

they couldn’t get loose on Saturday to show up. This is the place

they should have been.

They should have done the same thing I invited you to do, take

a little trip on the West side and see what they have done, see how

efficiently these people operate. They don’t have much margin for

error at all. I’m a little concerned that they really didn’t want to

come over here and I’m sorry that they didn’t. It’s their loss.

Ms. Redfern— Mr. DICROCE. I think Barry Nelson of RDC and I decided to split

the workload, if you will. I would be here, he would be in San Jose.

Mr. CONDIT. Are you representing them today?

Mr. DICROCE. Not representing him.

Mr. CONDIT. You are working with the organization?

Mr. DICROCE. We both work with the Environmental Caucus,

both our organizations.

Mr. CONDIT. Ms. Redfern, thank you for being here today. I want

to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Calvert as it relates

to your comments. You certainly do put a human face on this and

you are—you and your family are certainly heroes to the agricultural industry.

I would like, if you would, for you to speak to the impact on resources for water and I hope explain this correctly, water for

preirrigation, chemicals for and labor that was used during the

early months of the year going into December. I would like for you

to explain to us all that preparation that you made and then you

find out later that you’re not going to have enough water so those

fields over on the West side lay fallow and you’ve done all this

prelabor, prespraying, pre-everything.

What’s the loss to you and to the industry to that? Does that

make sense to you, the question?

Ms. REDFERN. Yes. On a per acre basis by January we put per- haps $150 an acre into a crop. With present commodity prices and

present water deliveries, if we can earn approximately $5 an acre

190

a crop net we are feeling as if it’s been a successful year. We’re just

hanging on. So with those acres, should they not receive water, the

ones that have already received those preirrigations and work

which we do as a matter of course, that $150 an acre is in the red.

Mr. CONDIT. And from my observation on the West side, there

are a lot of acreage in that category right now where people have

done this prework and been told later that they are not going to

receive the water, so the land will lay fallow and the money invested in the prework is lost.

Ms. REDFERN. That’s exactly right, thank you.

Mr. CONDIT. So it goes to the heart of creating some reliable commitment so that people don’t make—that’s a waste of water, it’s a

waste of everything, for you if you don’t have a long-term commitment; is that not correct?

Ms. REDFERN. Yes, that’s a waste of fuel. Every resource that we

have on our ranch is wasted.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of you

again for your testimony.

I want to, Mr. Broddrick, get to you real quick. I want to acknowledge and compliment you because I know of anyone sitting

in this building today that you have a great deal of knowledge

about CalFed and that when you were at Fish and Game you

worked very hard on CalFed and you’re an integral part of the

state team that negotiated the action plan and I want to thank you

and congratulate you and commend you for that.

One of the little known provisions of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a replacement water supply for refuge. This water supply currently comes from the—comes from and

impacts agricultural service contractors.

Now I just want to know in your current position are you willing

to work with us to develop a replacement water supply as to—directed under law?

Mr. BRODDRICK. The answer as written in the testimony that I

didn’t speak to is yes. I as everyone else who has a vested interest

by organizational association are nervous about the loss of the utility of the refuge water supply provisions. I am concerned just as

maybe others are that there’s a zero sum game in water and if fisheries are driving all the priorities, then some of the terrestrial species, whether they be ducks or some of your threatened species,

may be a little short on the stick when they are all allocated, especially in a crisis.

My response very directly to the question, I think we’ve got a bill

here with all the flexibility we have in conveyance and needs for

essential surface storage and existing conveyance of water south

and back up to the grassland system and I don’t think that unless

we have water security that potential partners, whether they be

agricultural districts, farm districts, private landowners or other

environmental organizations are going to be willing to commit to

anything very innovative if we continue to position left, right, center or depending on your point of view on the compass away from

each other.

I think there’s opportunities to meet all the refuge demands.

When I say refuge, I mean grassland water districts, private lands

there as well, but no one is willing to offer that flexibility when

191

there isn’t water security. Certainly there’s this dramatic option

there that we’re afraid to explore because of the scarcity.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you. Miss Guzman, if you could, for me, we

talked a little bit about the economy and the high unemployment

rate of the West side of this region and how the loss of water would

impact the economy.

If we don’t solve the water problem and make sure there’s some

certainty and security for agriculture, what is the plight of the

farm workers who make this whole thing work anyway? I mean,

what do they do when there’s no—when those lands lay fallow?

Where do they go, what do they do? Has your organization had—

have they done any studies to that, what the options are, et cetera?

Ms. GUZMAN. Our organizations haven’t done any studies. There

have been studies done not to land or fallow due to salinity, but

there have been some studies done of a land retirement due to

drought. That was done by Don Redifo (phonetic) when he was at

the California Institute for World Studies.

But I think what was mentioned earlier also by Dr. Sablan and

some other of the representatives on the West side on the impact

to the rural communities is that there is nowhere for them to go.

This is a problem—this is a situation that is here currently.

I’ve also been confronted with something that Tom has, I’m sure

repeatedly, that this is an industry that’s only been on the West

side for 50 years, but regardless of how long it’s been there, it’s

there today.

One of the other issues I wanted to bring about was—that tied

to this about workers having not much of another choice and it

being tied really to some of the contracts and some of the insurance

languages that’s in the contracts. It’s not that we’re opposed to that

guarantee, but just a concern. And this is found not only on the

West side, but also on the east side.

When the contracts are determined—are defined by use for purely irrigation use, then it’s a limit to the diversification of the economies in these rural areas. There’s a case that I’d like to give in Orange Cove where they—the small city of Orange Cove wanted to

put in a tortilla packaging plant, but they are maxed out on their

water supply from the Friant and were looking for some sort of

guarantee—they basically couldn’t bid on this plant because they

couldn’t guarantee them the water supply and they don’t have—

they have some limitations on working on the agreement with the

irrigation district there and that’s based on how the contracts are

written.

And this is also, I’m sure, a case that Dr. Sablan is facing in

Firebaugh where they have to look, as she mentioned, to their

packaging and processing sheds and companies that they also need

a reliable source of water, whether or not irrigated agriculture is

adjacent to them, but those tomatoes come to them from up and

down the valley, so they need to process them there and have a

guaranteed water supply.

That’s something we would like to work with Congressman Calvert on his bill and really assuring the communities that there will

be a water source for their economic development.

192

One other thing I’d like to add as a solution is that if there was

some way to tie into these contracts that they would all be as good

as Mrs. Redfern, then we’d be all for that as well.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you very much. You bring up a good point

and I noticed that Mr. Calvert made note of that. Thank you all

for being here today. I appreciate it.

Mr. CALVERT. I have just a couple of other questions and, Ms.

Guzman, you make a good point. Assurity of water not just for

farming, but for other uses that may help the local economy and

provide for better and higher paying jobs and that works for

everybody’s benefit. That’s why we’re here today, to try to expand

the supply of water to meet those needs.

Mr. DiCroce, I listened to your testimony and read your testimony. I’m just kind of curious, obviously you don’t like H.R. 1985.

Specifically, you don’t like the section that reauthorizes CalFed. Is

that all right, the three billion dollars, the Federal money that

we’re going to put into CalFed as our share? Is that part of it okay?

Mr. DICROCE. I think our view is that to a great extent with the

tenancy, the way it’s written it appears to preauthorize damage— Mr. CALVERT. I was going to ask that question. How does it

preauthorize— Mr. DICROCE. I feel as though it subverts or walks around— Mr. CALVERT. How specifically does it subvert? The way that legislation is written is that we must agree to a government scheme

within 1 year from the completion of the bill assuming that the bill

is signed into law and we have a law and authorization bill. The

state legislature, the governor of California, this Committee, would

work together to put together a government scheme. All the project

would have to go to that with all the stake holders, including yourself would be involved in that process, then would have to come

back to Congress and then would have to be appropriated. And it

still would have to go through the legal requirements and all the

other permissions that must be branded from various Federal and

state, local organizations.

So how does it predetermine anything?

Mr. DICROCE. If all of that is so, Mr. Chairman— Mr. CALVERT. It is so.

Mr. DICROCE. —then I don’t think that we would object to it. It

doesn’t appear to be that way.

Mr. CALVERT. The other section of the bill allows for Federal participation to allow local communities, for instance, put in reclamation. Are you opposed to reclamation?

Mr. DICROCE. No.

Mr. CALVERT. Are you opposed to conjunctive use?

Mr. DICROCE. Absolutely not.

Mr. CALVERT. But you’re opposed to the Federal Government

participating in those projects. Is that what I heard in your testimony?

Mr. DICROCE. No. I’m not following, so I can’t answer that one.

Mr. CALVERT. I guess what I get to is are we—are you—is your

organization or the organizations you represent opposed to the Federal Government participating in augmenting water supply to the

State of California?

Mr. DICROCE. No.

193

Mr. CALVERT. But in your testimony you said yes, you were.

Mr. DICROCE. You said Federal— Mr. CALVERT. Federal money.

Mr. DICROCE. To augment water supply.

Mr. CALVERT. Federal money to be used to help augment water

supply in the State of California for both urban, rural and environmental purposes. Are you opposed or in favor of that?

Mr. DICROCE. Stated that way we would have no objection to it.

If it predetermines the construction of some major dams that

CalFed is going— Mr. CALVERT. Where in the legislation does it say that we are to

predetermine anything?

Mr. DICROCE. I think that’s the conclusion— Mr. CALVERT. That’s the conclusion that’s possibly arrived at by

people who are opposed to H.R. 1985 and are quite frankly going

to create a water crisis in the State of California, which I don’t believe is necessary, nor good for the future of this state. And then

we need to go out and educate people in the environmental community that we don’t take one nickel, one dollar out of the environmental projects that were originally outlined within the CalFed

agreement. I think Mr. Broddrick would testify to that fact.

At any time have you seen where we take any money out of environmental litigation?

Mr. BRODDRICK. The CalFed issues that you identified in terms

of continuing with a Record of Decision embedded in the CalFed

Record of Decision is 150 million dollars a year in environmental

programs, 150 million dollars a year in environmental water account. If CalFed stays as projected, but not fully funded, your bill

will actually help ensure that those provisions are funded versus

compromising. So if you stay with the CalFed Record of Decision,

then we’re in—with those components embedded, they are part of

the biological opinion. They are there.

Mr. CALVERT. Basically it’s a point that needs to be driven home

over and over again. This is CalFed plus plus. We added a section

on grants to assist local communities to build water projects that

augments their water supply, reclamation, conjunctive use. I

haven’t talked to an environmental organization yet that’s opposed

to that.

We add back another section for bringing back the Department

of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program which can

also be used for environmental mitigation. We augment that from

the original legislation. I haven’t talked to many people who are opposed to that.

And so I come to the conclusion that there’s some people in this

state that just don’t want extra water.

Mr. DICROCE. I think if you can go back to the comments I made,

I think our vision and we feel that the state does already have adequate water supply. The challenge is to use it more efficiently.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I would state that based upon the number

of hearings that I’ve had, in a number of the counties, I suspect

every county in the state will end up endorsing this bill, every

major city would find that very dubious, in fact. Especially in the

West that we had a hearing, by the way, in Northern California,

which was the most attended hearing in the history of United

194

States of America. The most—now, I think there was 4,000 people

who came and left that hearing during the day. Unfortunately I

couldn’t Chair it that day. I had a previous commitment.

But this isn’t healthy. We’ve got to find solutions to the problem

and we need to work together to find these solutions. Water transfers and increased costs of water forcing the farm industry into

bankruptcy and I guess that would in effect create a water transfer

is not an acceptable solution as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. DICROCE. I would agree with you, that is not an acceptable

solution.

Mr. CALVERT. Any further comments?

Mr. CONDIT. I don’t want to—this gentleman here I certainly

don’t want to do that. As I was sitting here thinking, do you guys

take the position on other infrastructures other than water? With

your theory we can conserve our way out of an electrical crisis that

we’re in. We don’t need to build anything, you know, just keep conserving.

With the growth that you have in the state—I don’t know, I don’t

mean to be disrespectful to you. It’s just illogical to think that because we have a tremendous amount of growth—and I don’t want

people to think this is going to happen here in the Central Valley

if we don’t continue farming. What do you think is going to happen? Do you think we’re just going to have land sitting out there?

These people are going to build houses. People are going to come

here and they are going to commute in their cars.

I mean, I just don’t understand what the logic is of that rationale. I mean, we’re in an infrastructure crisis all across this country

in terms of roads, in terms of water facilities, in terms of electrical

stuff. And you are to tell me that we just conserve our way out of

it is the answer. I don’t mean to be—that’s what it sounds like

you’re saying.

Mr. DICROCE. I am saying that generally, not the total solution,

but a good part of it. May I respond to a couple?

Mr. CONDIT. You’ve taken enough shots today. You’re welcome to

respond.

Mr. DICROCE. Your analogy to the energy crisis, I’d like to give

you my personal view, not necessarily the California view. I think

we have an energy pricing crisis. We don’t have so much of an energy supply problem. There are some shortfalls.

The energy usage in the state has been going up modestly year

after year. There hasn’t been a lot of building and there are some

shortfalls that have been solved in less than a year. Our crisis in

energy is more a crisis of pricing, not supply.

We feel the same way for supply in the water issue. We don’t

have a crisis of supply. We have a crisis of efficient use and summary distribution.

Mr. CALVERT. So increasing the price is the answer?

Mr. DICROCE. No, that’s not the only answer. Improving investing in technology is one of the items I mentioned. More groundwater storage is one of the items I mentioned. A number of other

actions to go along with it, not just the reduction of subsidies.

Mr. CONDIT. California in the last decade the population rose 30

percent. Increase in water is less than 2 percent, so you can conserve your way out of that. That’s like saying we shouldn’t build

195

any more highways because we have to figure out another option.

Obviously we have to figure out all kinds of options. It sounds like

to me you’re opposed to any kind of infrastructure developing.

Mr. DICROCE. No, I do not say that. I know nothing about highways. I don’t know a lot about electricity either. I only know a little

bit about water.

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, sir, you’ve been very kind in allowing

us to go back and forth.

Mr. CALVERT. I want to thank you, this panel and I thank the

audience for attending today. It was a very informative hearing. I

want to thank you, Mr. Condit, for his hospitality in his wonderful

City of Modesto. I look forward to doing that. But we do have a crisis in California and not as visible as the electric crisis is today,

but we want to be proactive in trying to deal with it and work with

all the communities, environmental community, the farming community, and certainly the urban areas in order to come up with a

common solution that can work with the best interest of all of us

here in the wonderful State of California.

So have a great day, God bless and we’ll see you at the next

hearing, hopefully.

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(197)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY -- OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Monday, July 2, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

San Jose ́, California

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in the City

Council Chambers, 801 N. First Street, Room 205, San Jose,

California, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding.

Present: Representatives Calvert and Lofgren.

Staff Present: Steve Lanich, Staff; Jeannine Campos, Staff; and

Joshua Johnson.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. The committee will come to order. If everyone will

please take their seats, we’ll convene the meeting here shortly.

Thank you.

In the meantime, if the witnesses in the first panel will please

proceed to the front table, we would appreciate that. Thank you.

First, I want to thank my host today, Zoe Lofgren, for allowing

me to come up here to the beautiful city of San Jose. I had a delightful evening here last evening and you certainly have a community I’m sure you’re very proud of and certainly well represented.

It’s a pleasure to be here.

I have been going around the state having a number of hearings

on the future of California’s water security. Everyone has taken

time to come here today understands the importance of water

availability, reliability and supply to our well being, our environment, and this state and our country.

We have convened this hearing as an opportunity to listen to perspectives of those closest to the issues. Important work addressing

California’s water security has a strong foundation in the CALFED

Bay-Delta Program and the Record of Decision. This program contains a balanced holistic approach to dealing with water security

in the Bay-Delta area and the impacts on the water issues across

the board.

198

We need to certainly achieve the goals toward a balanced approach to water use to conserve and recycle that water and look for

ways to augment the water supply. This is in the heart of what I

believe is embodied in H.R. 1985, the Western Water Security Enhancement Act.

We must stop thinking in a fashion that pits the environment

against all other factors, a mentality that if we increase water supply and quality, it must be at the expense of the environment and

is detrimental to the working constructive on water issues in the

west.

When water supply and quality improve, the environment is benefitted by this additional water. When the environment is benefitted, water supply certainly helps the state and the west. We

have a number of stakeholders here today that have various perspectives on water and we are certainly looking forward to listening to them. We certainly, I think, can all agree that we have a

problem with water supply in the state of California—we always

have.

It’s one historic truth that we’ve had in this state for many years

and certainly in the west. We would like to come up with a

proactive solution where we don’t get into decision processes that

we are faced today with electricity which sometimes are not the

best solutions.

With that, I thank the witnesses for being here and recognize

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. LOFGREN. I’ll be very brief because I’m eager to listen to the

witnesses. First, let me welcome you, Mr. Chairman, to this beautiful city and this wonderful valley where I have lived all my life.

It’s a dynamic area, although we have an overall downturn in the

American economy right now. We all know that. This still remains

an area that is energetic. It really represents the economic future

of the United States and the world.

Clearly the ability to have a clean environment and ample water

supply is something that matters a great deal to this community,

not only to industry but to our residents. I think this hearing is

an important one. I’m appreciative that I’ve been invited to join

you here today even though I’m not a member of the Subcommittee.

Clearly this is an issue that all Members of Congress will be

dealing with along with our partners in state and local government

and the private sector. I hope that we can get ahead of the curve

on the challenges that face us here today. We know that the next

major challenge that will face our state is water supply and there

are several others following behind. With that, thank you once

again for coming to San Jose.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. With that, we’ll start with our first

panel and we’ll just kind of go left to right and start with Mr. Jim

Cunneen. Welcome.

By the way, let me explain our little 5 minute rule, all these little colored lights. We try to limit the testimony to 5 minutes. The

green light indicates that you’re into the 4 minutes and the yellow

199

light indicates 1 minute is left. The red light indicates please wrap

it up.

With that, Jim, please begin.

STATEMENT OF JIM CUNNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF SAN

JOSE SILICON VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. CUNNEEN. I can hardly say my name in 5 minutes, Mr.

Chairman. Delighted to have you to Silicon Valley. Welcome from

the Central Valley. In hearing Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren’s opening remarks and yours, it does remind me how much we have in

common as two regions.

Both the agricultural community and Silicon Valley do depend on

a clean, stable water supply. We both handle hazardous materials

daily for the manufacture of our products and farming. We both depend on international trade to a great degree.

I look forward to partnering more between the Silicon Valley delegation and the Central Valley delegation. I think we have much

in common on some core issues.

I am Jim Cunneen, President and CEO of the San Jose ́ Silicon

Valley Chamber of Commerce. We want to thank you for inviting

our organization to address the Subcommittee this morning.

We would like to express our strong support for your efforts,

Chairman Calvert, and Senator Feinstein’s efforts to reauthorize

the CALFED and to provide the Federal appropriation that is necessary for the program’s implementation.

The Chamber of Commerce, by way of background, represents a

powerful network of small retailers, small manufacturers, mid-size

service sector firms, accounting, PR, legal, and large high-tech enterprises. We’re the metro Chamber and the companies that make

up our organization have created Silicon Valley’s resilient economy.

We represent nearly 2,000 companies throughout the metro area

and we are the largest nonprofit organization that represents the

entire supply chain, the value chain of our business economy.

As a large urban Chamber we have long witnesses our region’s

ups and downs. Our take is simple. Silicon Valley’s technological

revolution is far from over, and our best days as a successful community lie ahead. A clean, stable water supply, however, is a prerequisite for future growth, and to maintain our regions leadership

position in the nation’s economy. Here is what’s at stake.

The nation’s largest high-tech presence and number of jobs; with

a combined high-tech payroll of $56 billion, with $22 billion of that

in San Jose ́ alone; a labor force in which high-tech firms employ

1 out of every 4 private sector workers; and with at least one computer in 77 percent of all households, the #1 ranking in the entire

nation.

I cannot stress enough the importance of water to the fulfillment

of our future. The challenge is clear, to provide a reliable source

of water for everyone in the state and still provide required flows

for environmental purposes. We don’t believe that these goals are

mutually exclusive.

From a business perspective it is pretty straightforward. If we

are perceived as a region by others that is short on water in addition to the high cost of living and traffic congestion and other

issues, it will be difficult to maintain and sustain the businesses

200

that compliment the high-tech and biotech industrial base that is

so important to our future.

We believe your committee and policy makers at both the state

and Federal level must address three key areas.

1. First, Federal investments in the Delta must continue to be increased. The Delta is at the center of our water delivery system.

While the State of California has stepped up and passed Proposition 13 in the March 2000 ballot providing nearly $2 billion, no

new Federal money was allocated in the last session of Congress

for this important purpose.

Also, state legislation providing for governance of CALFED was

defeated in the final days of the ’99 2000 session so the time to act

is now. The Delta must be rehabilitated through the immediate

commencement of a number of crucial repairs and only with new

Federal investment in this priority area can the Delta be restored

to deliver on its dual purpose, transporting water while maintaining a health ecosystem that minimizes the new listings of species,

something we all want to avoid.

2. California must have additional Federal guidance to develop

a plan showing how we intend to stay within our allotted 4.4 million acre-feet a year of Colorado river water. We have always exceeded our allocation, yet we are being asked now to stay within

that allocation. At the same time, demand for water continues to

increase. It’s a problem that we are going to need to continue to

work on with our Federal partners.

3. Finally, any solutions within the CALFED process must include storage and conveyance elements. While the Phase II Record

of Decision and EIR do include a call for surface storage, it lacks

any specifics. This is a crucial element to any fair, balanced plan.

We want to offer you our committed support for efforts to reauthorize the CALFED project. This important program, controversial

in elements, provides the best hope available to insure a reliable,

clean water supply in an equitable fashion for the Silicon Valley

and all of California.

You are to be commended, Chairman Calvert, for coming to Silicon Valley, for holding this hearing, and for fostering an atmosphere of cooperation among the various sectors of the state’s economy and major business and environmental stakeholders.

We are going to depend on you and Congresswoman Lofgren and

Senator Feinstein for continued leadership that will be essential to

create a positive political will to address the water supply problems

facing our state and we look forward to answering any questions

you might have as well. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunneen follows:]

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

Chamber of Commerce

Good morning. I’m Jim Cunneen, President and CEO of the San Jose ́ Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you, Chairman Calvert, for inviting our organization to address the Subcommittee this morning. I’d like to express the San Jose ́ Silicon Valley Chamber of

Commerce’s support for your efforts to re-authorize CalFed and to provide the federal appropriation necessary for program implementation.

The Chamber of Commerce represents a powerful network of small retailers,

small manufacturers, mid-size service-sector firms and large high tech enterprises—

companies that have together created Silicon Valley’s resilient economy. RepVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
201

resenting nearly 2,000 companies, our Chamber is the largest non-profit organization representing the entire supply chain of business enterprises throughout the San

Jose ́ Metropolitan Area. As a large, urban Chamber, we have long witnessed our

region’s ups and downs. Our take? Silicon Valley’s technological revolution is far

from over, and our best days as a successful community lie ahead.

A clean, stable water supply, however, is a prerequisite for future growth, and to

maintain our regions leadership position as:

• The nation’s largest high-tech presence and number of jobs;

• With a combined high-tech payroll of $56 billion, with $22 billion of that in San

Jose ́ alone;

• A labor force in which high-tech firms employ 1 out of every 4 private sector

workers;

• And with at least one computer in 77 percent of all households, the 1 ranking

area in the entire nation.

I cannot stress enough the importance of water to the fulfillment of our promising

future. The challenge is clear: To provide a reliable source of water for everyone in

the state and still provide required flows for environmental purposes. These goals

are not mutually exclusive.

From the business perspective it’s straightforward: If we are perceived by others

as a region that is water short (in addition to high cost of living, traffic congestion,

and other issues), it will be difficult to be able to sustain the businesses that complement the high-tech and biotech industrial base that is so important to our nation

and its standing in the global marketplace.

We believe your committee and policymakers at both the state and federal level

must address these key areas:

1. Federal investments in the Delta must be increased. The Delta is at the center

of our water delivery system. While the State of California passed Proposition

13 in March 2000 providing nearly $2 billion, no new federal money was allocated in the last session of Congress. Also, state legislation providing for governance of CalFed was defeated in the final days of the 1999–2000 session. The

Delta must be rehabilitated through the immediate commencement of a number of crucial repairs. Only with new federal investment in this priority area

can the Delta be restored to deliver on its dual purpose—transporting water

while maintaining a healthy ecosystem that minimizes the new listings of species.

2. California must have additional federal guidance to develop a plan showing

how we intend to stay within our allotted 4.4 million acre-feet a year of Colorado River water. We consistently exceed our allocation at present. Yet demand

for water increases.

3. Any solutions within the CalFed process must include storage and conveyance

elements. While the Phase II Record of Decision and EIR do include a call for

surface storage, it lacks any specifics. This is a crucial element to any fair, balanced plan.

I want to offer you our committed support for efforts to reauthorize the CalFed

project. This important program, controversial though it is, provides the best hope

available to insure a reliable, clean water supply in an equitable fashion for the Silicon Valley—and all of California. You are to be commended for holding this hearing

and for fostering an atmosphere of cooperation among the various sectors of the

state’s economy and major business and environmental stakeholders. Your continued leadership will be essential to create the positive political will to address the

water supply problems facing our state.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Gaines.

STATEMENT OF BILL GAINES, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION

Mr. GAINES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Bill Gaines. I’m the Director of Government Affairs for the California Waterfowl Association. On behalf of our association’s 15,000 members throughout California I would like to

thank you for coming to San Jose ́ today and for allowing us to

202

provide testimony on the CALFED Program and your legislation

dealing with CALFED Program as well.

Historically, California’s Bay- Delta watershed provided about 4

million acres of naturally occurring seasonal wetlands for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. Unfortunately, over the

course of the last century or so, about 90 percent of those wetlands

have been removed due to converting land to agricultural uses, urbanization, flood control, and navigation projects.

Today we have, as I mentioned, about 10 percent of our historic

wetlands remaining. Unfortunately, about 60 percent of our Pacific

Flyway waterfowl still must depend upon these few remaining wetlands to meet their annual migratory and nesting needs.

In addition, we estimate that about 50 percent of California’s

threatened and endangered species are also in some way wetland

dependent.

Due to significant changes in California’s natural hydrology,

most of these few remaining wetlands must also be managed today.

In other words, they must be artificially irrigated and intensely

managed to recreate and maintain marsh conditions.

In essence, public and private wetland managers must farm for

ducks. In other words, we are dependent upon surface water supplies and groundwater supplies just like every other farmer out

there in the Central Valley is, just like our urban users are, we are

dependent upon water to provide those managed wetlands for waterfowl and other wetland dependent species that depend upon

them.

Definitely water is the lifeblood of California’s waterfowl conservation effort. About 10 years ago, in response to this concern

and the fact that almost all of our remaining wetlands were of

minimal habitat quality in almost all but the wettest of years,

California Waterfowl Association worked with Congress and a variety of other water interests to pass the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

The refuge water provisions within the CVPIA played a critical

role in helping to provide the Central Valley Federal refuges, the

state wildlife areas, and the private wetlands within the Grasslands Resource Conservation District with a guarantee of some

water supplies, good water supplies in all but the driest of years.

Unfortunately, the CVPIA refuge water provisions also had some

shortage provisions which would allow those water supplies to be

cut in dry years and I’ll talk about those in a second. I must commend Congressman Miller for his assistance with passing the

CVPIA. Obviously he was a key player in that many years ago and

we thank him to this day for that, as well as many other Members

of Congress.

Although the CVPIA plays an important role in providing water

supplies, to roughly about 50 percent of our remaining Central Valley wetlands, there is still much to be done considering that we

only have about 10 percent of our historic wetlands remaining.

Even if that 10 percent could be managed to provide pretty good

waterfowl and wetland-dependent species habitat year in and year

out. With only 10 percent provided on the ground, we had a lot of

work to be done.

203

The CALFED Program was initiated a couple of years later and

its intent, of course, was to address ecosystem health, water quality, water supply reliability and levee system integrity in the BayDelta watershed as well.

Because the restoration enhancement of the wetland areas in the

Bay-Delta watershed depends largely upon these wetland water

supplies as well, CALFED is a very, very important program to us.

Back in November of ’96 the State of California’s public supported the CALFED Program and made a financial commitment to

it, if you will, with the passage of Proposition 204 which committed

about $995 million in state funding for implementation of CALFED

related activities.

Clearly this was an important step toward giving the CALFED

Program the fuel that it needed to address the water supply reliability problems that we have in the Central Valley but it simply

is not enough.

Federal funding to supplement the state funding is critical to the

success of the CALFED Program and we believe that your

H.R. 1985, Congressman, takes an important step in this direction.

Our association is pleased to provide this legislation with our

support, but we do have some concerns, most notably the

Westlands water provision, which guarantees south of the Delta

water users minimum deliveries, if you will, above what they are

receiving now on a typical year in, year out.

That provides us with great concern because the bill lacks specificity as to where that water is going to come from.

Clearly the Central Valley refuges and the private wetlands in

the Grasslands Resource Conservation District that benefitted so

greatly from the CVPIA could be severely hurt under H.R. 1985 if

those appropriate safeguards to provide protections from environmental water supplies, most notably wetland water supplies, aren’t

somehow included. We look forward to working with you on providing those safeguards within the bill.

We also ask for your assistance on a couple of other points. One

of the long concerns that we’ve had with the CALFED Program is

the fact that the CALFED Program is primarily a fish program.

Now, we recognize that if you are going to address the water delivery and water liability concerns in our Central Valley and

throughout California, you need to address listed fish species concerns. There is no question about that because it is the same listed

fish species that are creating many of the regulatory pinches, if you

will, that are restricting some of the important water users south

of the Delta from receiving their water supplies.

Nevertheless, if you are going to have an ecosystem restoration

program and you want to address the ecosystem as a whole, it is

critical that you address the significant wetland loss that we have

experienced here in our Central Valley.

We ask for your help in providing some guidance to CALFED to

make it a program that takes into greater consideration wetland

and waterfowl species that have suffered so greatly from the loss

of the 90 percent of their habitat here in California.

We are here today to provide our support for H.R. 1985. We do

ask for your assistance in providing us with some of the language

204

in there that we need to make it a better bill. We thank you for

the opportunity to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaines follows:]

Statement of Bill Gaines, Director, Government Affairs, California

Waterfowl Association

Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Bill

Gaines, and I am the Director of Government Affairs for the California Waterfowl

Association. On behalf of our Association’s 15,000 members, and waterfowl enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Flyway, I would like to thank you for the opportunity

to come before you today to discuss Northern California Water Security—Opportunities and Challenges.

Founded in 1945, the California Waterfowl Association (CWA) is a private nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of California’s waterfowl, wetlands

and our hunting heritage. The California Waterfowl Association effectively pursues

this mission through waterfowl research, habitat projects, education and outreach

programs, and Government Affairs activities.

Historically, California’s Bay/Delta watershed provided over 4 million acres of naturally occurring wetland habitat for Pacific Flyway waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species. Over the course of the last century, largely due to the construction

of the federal Central Valley Project, the State Water Project, the conversion of land

to agriculture, urban expansion, and flood control and navigation projects, over 90%

of this once vast habitat base has been destroyed. The greatest percentage loss of

this important habitat type in North America. Yet, today, our few remaining wetlands must still provide critically important nesting and wintering habitat for

roughly 60% of Pacific Flyway waterfowl—representing nearly 25% of our continental waterfowl population. In addition to placing serious stress on our waterfowl

resource, the significant loss of this habitat type has also had a substantial impact

on many of our State’s other native species. In fact, an estimated fifty percent of

California’s threatened and endangered species are, in some way, wetland-dependent.

Due to significant changes in California’s natural hydrology, most of our few remaining interior wetlands must now be ‘‘managed’’—artificially irrigated and intensively managed to create and maintain marsh conditions. As a result of this very

unique condition, the quantity and quality of wetland and waterfowl habitat available in California in any given year is highly dependent upon the availability of

water supplies for wetland management. Recognizing this unique and serious condition, for more than half a century, our Association has worked cooperatively with

State and federal legislators and agencies, other organizations and private landowners to obtain reliable water supplies for wetlands and to develop, influence, fund

and implement wetland programs which facilitate the much needed enhancement,

restoration and on-going maintenance of California’s critical wetland habitat.

Yes, water is the lifeblood of California’s wetland and waterfowl conservation effort. Unfortunately, for many years, the lack of a firm wetland water supply has

minimized our ability to fully manage California’s few remaining habitat areas in

all but the absolute wettest of years. Ten years ago, in response to this concern, our

Association worked closely with Congress to draft the ‘‘refuge water’’ provisions of

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). When the Act was signed by

President Bush in the fall of 1992, a significant positive step was taken towards addressing these critical annual wetland water needs. By ‘‘guaranteeing’’ firm annual

water supplies to Central Valley federal refuges and State wildlife areas, and private wetlands within the Grasslands Resource Conservation District, this landmark

legislation marked a critical, positive milestone in the California wetland conservation effort. But, with only about ten percent of our historical habitat still in place,

much remains to be done.

More recently, the CALFED Program was initiated to address ecosystem health,

water quality, water supply reliability, and levee system integrity in the Bay/Delta

watershed. Because the restoration, enhancement and maintenance of waterfowl

habitat throughout much of this watershed also depends upon on these areas of concern, properly implemented, the CALFED Bay/Delta Program represents a tremendous opportunity to address the needs of migratory and nesting waterfowl, and

other wetland-dependent species.

The CALFED Program is a cooperative, inter-agency effort of 18 State and federal

agencies. In November of 1996, the people of California formally embraced the

CALFED Program as the vehicle for addressing our State’s water concerns by passing Proposition 204, the ‘‘Clean, Safe, Reliable Water for Cities, Farms and the

205

Environment’’ Bond Act—a measure which committed $995 million in State funding

for the implementation of CALFED related activities. But, although these State dollars may appear significant, they alone are simply not enough to fuel this essential

effort. CALFED is certainly the most significant and positive multi-interest endeavor ever undertaken to address water and environmental concerns in California, and

perhaps throughout the entire nation. Yet, without the necessary funding to fully

implement its many important facets, the Program will fall short of its considerable

goal of providing all of California’s urban, agricultural and environmental water interests with reliable long-term water supplies. Significant supplemental federal

funding is integral to the success of this important Program.

Congressman 4Ken Calvert’s H.R. 1985, the ‘‘Western Water Enhancement Security Act’’, would address this serious concern in the near-term by authorizing significant federal funding for the CALFED Program, beginning in fiscal year 2002. Our

Association firmly believes that the funding, guidance and appropriate governance

that Representative Calvert’s bill would provide are critical to the success of the

CALFED Program, and we are pleased to offer this important measure our full support.

Although we fully support this bill, we would also like to provide some specific

thoughts on how this bill could more effectively help the CALFED Program to better

achieve it’s environmental goals. As currently written, Section 103 of H.R. 1985, entitled ‘‘California Water Supply Security’’, would require the Secretary of the Interior to operate the Central Valley Project (CVP) in a manner which assures southof–Delta CVP agricultural water service contractors at least 70% of their existing

contracts in a normal water year. At the same time, the Section also includes language that states that ‘‘the increased supply shall be accomplished without reducing

deliveries to other water agencies that rely on water diverted from the Bay/Delta

watershed or degrading the quality of water...for municipal and industrial uses.’’ With no specific similar protections called out for environmental users, we believe

this provision, as currently written, places south-of–Delta managed wetlands at considerable risk. Although the CVPIA does offer some protections for many of these

habitats, the Act specifically allows for shortages in ‘‘Level 2’’ and ‘‘Level 4’’ wetland

water deliveries. To address this concern, we ask that Section 103(a)(3) of H.R. 1985

be amended to also specifically protect managed wetlands from reduced deliveries

to meet the increased south-of–Delta agricultural supply called out by the bill.

Our Association would also like to offer the following general thoughts on how the

environmental benefits provided by the CALFED Program could, and should be improved. To begin, it is important to note that we appreciate and fully support the

overall goal of the CALFED Program to address water supply reliability, and we

recognize the importance of addressing the habitat needs of listed fish species in

achieving this objective. California’s ‘‘managed’’ wetlands—which are also highly dependent upon surface water availability—will benefit greatly from achieving this

goal as well. Yet, if the Program is to make an honest effort to restore the integrity

of the Bay/Delta ecosystem, it must fully consider the serious habitat needs of native wildlife—most notably wintering and nesting waterfowl, and the listed ‘‘nonfish’’ species and other wildlife which share their habitats.

The tremendous loss of our historic Central Valley wetlands, and the resulting impact to many species—several of which are now threatened or endangered—is well

documented. These species of concern are very low in profile compared with winter

and spring run chinook salmon, delta smelt, and the other high-profile listed fish

species CALFED has focused on, but they are every bit as threatened or endangered. The CALFED Program’s ecosystem restoration effort could, and should play

a significant role in addressing the habitat needs of these wetland-dependent species. Yet, thus far, the continued requests by our Association, and our conservation

partners, to elevate wetland-dependent species and their habitats to a high priority

of the CALFED Program have largely been ignored.

In the mid–1980’s, in response to serious reductions in North American waterfowl

populations, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was

signed by the federal governments of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This

Plan established broad waterfowl populations goals, and identified seven initial priority areas on the North American continent in greatest need of habitat restoration

and enhancement. California’s Central Valley was one of these identified top priority areas.

Two years later, in 1988, a habitat restoration program, in many ways like

CALFED, was initiated to address NAWMP objectives in our Central Valley. Known

as the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture (CVHJV), this public/private partnership—consisting of nearly twenty State and federal resource agencies and private

conservation organizations—carefully established biologically based acreage objectives for the preservation, enhancement, restoration and maintenance of waterfowl

206

habitat throughout much of the CALFED project area. For the past 13 years, by

working closely with private landowners and the agricultural sector to achieve its

objectives, the CVHJV partnership has made great strides in addressing its identified habitat goals, and has gained considerable acceptance within the private sector.

Representative Calvert’s H.R. 1985 recognizes the importance of utilizing partnerships to achieve CALFED’s goals. Yet, the Program itself continues to ignore what

is arguably the most successful environmental restoration partnership ever created—the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. Today, we ask for you to use H.R.

1985 as a vehicle for reshaping CALFED into a program which takes advantage of

the effective partnerships and extensive goodwill the CVHJV has created over the

course of the past decade. We also ask for your assistance in guiding CALFED to

more appropriately address all of our Bay/Delta ecosystem restoration needs. We request that language be inserted in the bill which requires the Program to fully recognize the many listed non-fish species who depend upon seasonal wetland habitats,

and that a portion of the funding authorized in the measure be earmarked for

projects consistent with the habitat objectives called out in the Implementation Plan

of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. Carefully amended in this way, H.R.

1985 could not only help CALFED to take advantage of the substantial private sector support currently enjoyed by the CVHJV, but also help the Program to bring

the many public and private partners of the Joint Venture—and their available

funding—to the CALFED table to assist in the delivery of the Program’s ecosystem

restoration goals.

In conclusion, the California Waterfowl Association would like to applaud Representative Calvert for introducing H.R. 1985, and Members of the Committee for

holding today’s hearing. We also ask Congress to help us fully realize the potential

of the CALFED Program to appropriately address the needs of our North American

waterfowl populations and the other native plant and animal species who share

their habitats.

On behalf of the members of the California Waterfowl Association, and waterfowl

enthusiasts throughout the North American continent, I thank you for the opportunity to come before you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you

may have at this time.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony.

Ms. Davis.

STATEMENT OF GRACE DAVIS, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MANAGER, INTEL CORPORATION

Ms. DAVIS. First, I would like to thank you, Chairman Calvert,

and Zoe Lofgren for allowing me to speak to you today on behalf

of Intel Corporation regarding the economic impacts and benefits

of a clean water supply.

By way of background, Intel Corporation has 120 site facilities located in 50 different countries. California is home to two of our

largest sites, the first located here in Santa Clara employing approximately 8,000 people, and another in Folsom which employs

approximately 7,500.

We employ 18,000 people in California alone with a worldwide

employment base of 86,000 people. Moreover, we added approximately 20,000 of those jobs in the year 2000 recently.

The year 2000 was our 14th consecutive year of revenue growth

with sales totally $33.7 billion. Our industry as a whole is proud

to provide high paying jobs for our local communities.

To start, in the words of our CEO Craig Barrett, we have long

said that product and environmental stewardship, as well as employee health and safety can go hand in hand with successful business practices.

With this in mind, it is important to note that a clean, dependable water supply is a crucial element of our microprocessor manuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
207

facturing process. Simply put, the industry can’t produce microprocessors without a clean, consistent quality water source.

Additionally, when looking toward the future, this clean, sustainable water supply is a key determinant in our expansion plans

within California and across the nation. Intel uses the water to

rinse off computer chips of impurities and imperfections so they

work flawlessly inside computer products.

Each year we use approximately 6 billion gallons of water to

manufacture and assemble our microprocessors worldwide. At face

value, that’s a lot of water. But the amount of water used by Intel

as a whole is much smaller than most people believe.

For example, a typical golf course in Arizona uses the same

amount of water per day as an Intel wafer fab. Of all water users

in the United States, industry accounts for 6 percent of water consumption while electric and electronic equipment manufacturing,

including Intel’s products, account for about 1 percent of that.

Because we recognize how critical a clean ultra-pure water supply is, we have taken great measures to ensure we use our water

supply as efficiently and responsibly as absolutely possible. From

an external perspective, water quality and conservation are our

Intel’s top environmental issues.

As a result, we have taken every measure to ensure we are maximizing our own water efficiency. For example, we have created an

industrial water management program combining some of our best

water conservation strategies from various Intel sites into what we

call our best-known methods.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, if a site is in need of water conservation, we know how much the program costs, what it takes to

design it, run it, and we can implement it at the needed site.

This program can reduce the amount of fresh water used at an

individual factory by 50 to 60 percent. Even with Intel’s healthy

growth, normalized water use has remained relatively constant and

flat.

Overall, Intel recycles about 1 billion gallons of water per year.

Between 1998 to 2001, Intel will save about 20,000 acre-feet of

water, or the amount used by 100,000 people per year. This is

equal to all the water that falls over Niagara Falls in two and a

half hours.

As part of our long-term strategy, we have established a new

working group chartered to develop a water management strategy

and an implementation plan that includes a reduction in overall

water consumption for our major manufacturing sites.

Finally, as we continue to grow, I can assure you we will continue to expand our resource reduction strategies to lessen the impact on our local environments. At the same time, the overall

health of the high-tech economy is reliant upon crucial resources

and clean water is a critical component of the manufacturing process.

Once again, simply put, we can’t do it without a clean water supply. As such, our industry sector needs to have access to this critical resource.

On behalf of Intel Corporation, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today and I look forward to answering

any questions you may have.

208

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]

Statement of Grace Davis, Government Affairs Manager, Intel Corporation,

Santa Clara, California

First, I would like to thank you, Chairman Calvert as well as your esteemed colleagues on the Water and Power Resource committee for allowing me to speak to

you today on behalf of Intel Corporation regarding the economic impacts and benefits of a clean water supply.

By way of background, Intel Corporation has 120 site facilities located in 50 different countries. California is home to two of our larger sites, the first located here

in Santa Clara with an employment base of approximately 8,000 people and another

in Folsom with 7,500 employees. We employ 18,000 people in California alone with

a worldwide employment base of 86,000 people. Moreover, we added approximately

20,000 of those employees last year alone.

The year 2000 was our 14th consecutive year of revenue growth, with sales of $33.7 billion dollars. Net income was up 44% including acquisition-related costs.

Our industry as a whole provides high paying jobs to our local communities.

To start, in the words of our CEO Craig Barrett, we have long said that product

and environmental stewardship, as well as employee health and safety can go hand

in hand with successful business practices.

With this in mind, it is important to note that a clean, dependable water supply

is a crucial element of our microprocessor manufacturing process. Simply put, the

industry can’t produce microprocessors without a clean, consistent quality water

source. Additionally, when looking towards the future, this clean, sustainable water

supply is a key determinant in our expansion plans within California and across the

nation.

Intel uses the water to rinse off computer chips of impurities and imperfections

so they work flawlessly inside computer products.

Each year, we use approximately 6 billion gallons of water to manufacture and

assemble our microprocessors, worldwide. At face value, that’s a lot of water. But

the amount of water used by Intel as a whole is much smaller than many people

believe. For example, a typical golf course in Arizona uses the same amount of

water per day as an Intel wafer fab. Of all water users in the United States, industry accounts for six percent of water consumption while electric and electronic

equipment manufacturing, including Intel’s products account for about one percent

of that.

Because we recognize how critical a clean ultra-pure water supply is, we have

taken great measures to ensure we use our water supply as efficiently and responsibly as absolutely possible. From an external perspective, water quality and conservation are our Intel’s top environmental issues. As a result, Intel has taken every

measure to ensure we are maximizing our own water efficiency. For example, we

have created an industrial water management program combining some of our best

water conservation strategies from various Intel sites-into what we call our bestknown methods.

Rather then reinvent the wheel, if a site is in need of water conservation, we

know how much the program costs, what it takes to design it, run it, and we can

implement it at the needed site.

This program can reduce the amount of fresh water used at an individual factory

by 50–60 percent. Even with Intel’s healthy growth, normalized water use, has remained relatively flat.

Overall, Intel recycles about 1 billion gallons of water per year. Between 1998 to

2001, Intel will save about 20,000 acre feet of water—or the amount used by

100,000 people in a year. This is equal to all the water that falls over Niagara Falls

in 2 and a half hours.

As part of our long term strategy, we have established a new working group chartered to develop a water management strategy and an implementation plan that includes a reduction in overall water consumption for Intel’s major manufacturing

sites. The scope of this team is to set goals, develop water use models and evaluate

water use reduction, recycling and reclamation technologies. The team will establish

roadmaps of existing and future site.

Intel is committed to saving water. At the same time, in order for this industry

to continue, it’s critical that we have access to an abundant clean water supply for

the manufacturing process. Our Hudsen Massachusetts site has proven to be an efficient, cost-competitive addition to Intel’s manufacturing network. Intel has invested

nearly 5 pecentof the cost of the project in water recycling and conservation measures that use innovative technology and exceed state requirements. It’s among the

world’s first semiconductor manufacturing plant to reuse, clean and recycle the ultra

209

pure water it uses to rinse computer chips. This 10 million dollar investment will

enable Intel to use less water than the increased production level would ordinarily

require.

Finally, as we continue to grow, I can assure you we will continue to expand our

resource reduction strategies to lessen the impact on local environments. At the

same time, the overall health of the high tech economy is reliant upon crucial resources and clean water is a critical component of the manufacturing process. As

such, our industry sector needs to have access to this resource. On behalf of Intel

Corporation, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Ms. Davis.

Mr. Wenger.

STATEMENT OF PAUL J. WENGER, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT,

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. WENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

present testimony to the committee today. My name is Paul

Wenger. I am the Second Vice President of the California Farm Bureau Federation and a farmer from Modesto. I raise walnuts and

alfalfa on my family’s farm that was purchased by my grandfather

in 1910.

On behalf of the Farm Bureau, I would like to announce our support for H.R. 1985, the ‘‘Western Water Enhancement Security

Act,’’ and express our appreciation for your leadership on the difficult and complex issues that surround California’s water supply.

The Farm Bureau has supported the CALFED process since its

inception in 1994 and continues to actively participate in the

CALFED Program. In 1996 the Farm Bureau supported the Safe,

Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, otherwise known as Proposition

204, because we believed in the promise of CALFED. CALFED

promised that California’s water users would ‘‘get better together,’’

and we believe CALFED can and should deliver on that promise.

As you move forward in the legislative process, we ask you to

look for alternative ways to accomplish the environmental goals of

the CALFED Program. The Farm Bureau urges you to maximize

the ecosystem restoration potential of CALFED by fully embracing

the locally driven and cooperative programs, in lieu of outright government land acquisitions and regulation.

The Farm Bureau believes that government land acquisitions are

not the best way to support habitat development. The most fiscally

responsible and effective means to develop habitat is through a program like Partnerships for Restoration.

This program would be a voluntary local landowner/local government driven process where framers and ranchers take proactive

steps to increase the habitat value of their land in return for financial compensation and protection from prosecution under the Endangered Species Acts.

Landowner ‘‘assurances’’ are a vital component of the program

because landowners should not be criminally prosecuted for accidental interference with protected species when they are trying to

support and preserve these species for future generations.

I sat through your discussion in Modesto on Saturday and it was

interesting to hear about how agriculture has been said to use 85

percent of the developed water. According to Bulletin 160 of the

Department of Water Resources, agriculture currently uses

210

43 percent of the developed water in California, environment 46

percent, municipal and industrial 11 percent.

Conservation we keep hearing and agriculture will settle all the

problems of water in California. Conservation is a misnomer when

you talk about agriculture. Agricultural water is not lost. It is interesting as we flood and furrow irrigate some of our ground, even

the University of California at Davis said the most effective and efficient way to use water, depending on your soil type, of course, is

through flood irrigation.

It’s interesting in the Modesto area where you were at on Saturday that they are now facing a problem as people have converted

to drip and micro-irrigation but there is less water being applied

to the surface.

We apply just enough water for the plants to use and there’s

nothing that is going and percolating down in the underground

aquifers when usually we took that water and about 15 or 20 percent of the water was used by the plant and the rest of it found

its way down through the soil stratus and into the underground

aquifers.

Instead we now have Modesto irrigation district and other areas

putting in reinjection wells taking possibly contaminated surface

waters and trying to reinject them into underground aquifers, and

yet we are telling farmers not to apply more water onto their land.

I find it ironic.

We heard that if you could increase the price of water, that we

would have conservation and those who could pay for it would get

it. I find this unfair. I am a farmer and I raise, like I said, alfalfa

and walnuts. I will not know until December this year what I will

get for my walnuts I raised last year. I don’t know too many people

in business today that wait that long to find out if they are going

to have a profit or a loss.

Agriculture is a price taker, not a price setter. If we could just

say whatever we pay for the price of water, we’ll pass it on to the

ultimate consumer which is all of us here. Fine. We can’t do that.

We produce a crop and then we ask somebody what they are going

to pay us for it and we’ve got to figure out how to make a profit

in between.

When you look at the current farm prices that we all know

about, we are selling our products at prices that we haven’t seen

for 30 years. I know our costs are a lot more than they were 30

years ago. Farmers are stewards of the land. We are true conservationists.

I can remember 20 years ago, 30 years ago when I started farming in my dad’s, and even in my grandfather’s time, we always let

the fence lines grow so you have habitat for quail and other things.

It’s funny that now all of a sudden people are focusing on our

farms and we have people from outside the farm telling us what

is best for our land, how best to manage it.

You can’t really blame farmers when all of a sudden they say,

‘‘We’re going to clear our fence rows because of a thing called the

Endangered Species Act and other people that think they know

what is best for our land.’’ I find it ironic that we have endangered

species on our land currently. We should be applauded and not regulated.

211

Real quickly because the light went on and we would just like

to say that we do have some things that we would like to see just

a little as far as in the Act but we do support H.R. 1985.

We look forward to working with you and your staff to cooperate

to implement the goals of CALFED while minimizing the program’s

effects upon our state’s valuable agricultural resources. We will be

discussing some clarifications with your staff. We also have some

attachments, I think, written, changes that we would maybe like

to see, some little things.

Thank you for having this hearing today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenger follows:]

Statement of Paul Wenger, Second Vice President of the California Farm

Bureau Federation

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony to the committee today. My name is Paul Wenger. I am the Second Vice President of the

California Farm Bureau Federation (‘‘Farm Bureau’’), and a farmer. I grow walnuts

and alfalfa on my family’s farm that was purchased by my grandfather in 1910. On

behalf of Farm Bureau, I would like to announce our support for H.R. 1985, the

‘‘Western Water Enhancement Security Act,’’ and express our appreciation for your

leadership on the difficult and complex issues that surround California’s water supply.

The Farm Bureau has supported the CALFED process since its inception in 1994

and continues to actively participate in the CALFED Program. In 1996, the Farm

Bureau supported the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, otherwise known as

Proposition 204, because we believed in the promise of CALFED. CALFED promised

that California’s water users would ‘‘get better together,’’ and we believe CALFED

can and should deliver on that promise.

As we move forward in the legislative process, we ask you to look for alternative

ways to accomplish the environmental goals of the CALFED Program. The Farm

Bureau urges you to maximize the ecosystem restoration potential of CALFED by

fully embracing the locally driven and cooperative programs, in lieu of outright government land acquisitions.

1. The Farm Bureau believes that government land acquisitions are not the best way

to support habitat development:

The Farm Bureau believes the most fiscally responsible and effective means to develop habitat is through a program like Partnerships for Restoration. This program

would be a voluntary local landowner/local government driven process where farmers and ranchers take proactive steps to increase the habitat value of their land in

return for financial compensation and protection from prosecution under the Endangered Species Acts. Landowner ‘‘assurances’’ are a vital component of the program

because landowners should not be criminally prosecuted for accidental interference

with protected species when they are trying to support and preserve these species

for future generations.

Wildlife and farming are compatible. Our farms and ranches have been supporting wildlife of every variety for generations because our family farmers are excellent stewards of the land. In fact, farmers and ranchers are the most qualified

guardians of these resources because the soil, weather, seasons, wildlife, and vegetation guide every aspect of their lives and livelihoods. We do not need pilot programs

to see if a program like Partnerships for Restoration could be successful because we

are surrounded by examples of farmers and ranchers taking proactive steps to support wildlife.

For example there is Dave Fisher, a high desert cattleman in San Bernardino

County, who is continuing his family’s 150-year tradition of ranching and wildlife

preservation. Through water development and responsible grazing practices, he has

created a haven for wildlife. Because of his efforts, his ranch is the home of a flourishing population of big horn sheep and the most viable population of desert tortoises in the state.

There is Tom Muller who farms 6,000 acres with his partners in Yolo County, in

addition to the 850-acre vineyard Muller personally manages. Muller has provided

significant nesting habitat on his farm by letting his ditches and field lines be covered with grassy vegetation, and he even plants native grasses and trees in these

areas and at the low ends of his fields. His vineyards also provide cover for wildlife

212

1We continue to question whether scientifically and economically the EWA can be justified,

especially given the available alternatives to water purchases.

because he mows between the vines instead of discing. Muller has also introduced

an Integrated Pest Management Program to reduce the need for spraying.

There is Charlie Matthews who was a pioneer of using rice rollers on his Yuba

County property. The farm, which was bought by Mathews’ great-grandfather in

1860, is located in an area noted for its waterfowl populations. The rice straw roller

is used to incorporate rice straw into the soil after harvest, allowing for easier

breakdown and helping to establish artificial wetlands for migrating waterfowl.

Mathews floods his rice fields from October to March, allowing time for the later

migrating species to stop and rest on his farm. Mathews’ rice farming techniques

are not unusual, and are now, in fact, the predominant practice in Northern

California.

A program like Partnerships for Restoration would be a viable alternative to the

significant government land purchases proposed as a part of the CALFED Program.

With adequate protection from liability and some financing, California’s farmers and

ranchers could work with the regulatory agencies to create many times over the

amount of habitat that can be supported through outright government ownership.

The Farm Bureau is concerned about the government’s continuing consumption

of California’s privately owned land and water resources because each purchase

threatens our state’s farming and ranching infrastructure.

2. There is a baseline of agricultural land and water resources that must be maintained by each community:

When the resources within a community drop below the agricultural resources

baseline, the region is no longer able to support the farming infrastructure. The

processing plants, equipment dealers, transportation links, farm workers and other

necessary farm support services either go out of business or leave the area. Once

this occurs, the remaining agricultural lands within the region are sold to the highest bidder because the farmers and ranchers are no longer able to sell and transport

their fresh fruits, vegetables, nursery, meat and dairy products to the urban markets, and the farm workers must make other arrangements to support their families.

3. Cooperative habitat restoration projects are less expensive and provide greater

fishery benefits than government water purchases.

There is strong evidence to suggest that physical restoration of habitat, like planting trees on stream banks and putting gravel in stream beds, is less expensive than

purchasing water, and results in greater increases in fish populations. In particular,

the Farm Bureau is troubled by the substantial CALFED Environmental Water Account (EWA) purchases because this water is being converted from agricultural use.

Since the EWA water is only for ‘‘recovery’’ of protected fish species, in theory,

this water would not be otherwise involuntarily taken by the regulatory agencies

to protect the fish from ‘‘jeopardy.’’ The agencies have more discretion in how they ‘‘recover’’ species than they do in avoiding jeopardy. As such, the Farm Bureau

urges CALFED to find alternatives to unnecessarily converting agricultural water

resources to non-agricultural use.

The Farm Bureau supports H.R. 1985 and looks forward to working with your

staff to cooperatively implement the goals of CALFED while minimizing the program’s effects upon our state’s valuable agricultural resources.

Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing some clarifications with your staff as the bill

progresses. Please refer to our attachment for information regarding how this bill

could be even better. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide the perspective of California’s farmers and ranchers.

ATTACHMENT

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of places within H.R. 1985 where the

California Farm Bureau Federation would like to see the bill clarified, as follows:

H.R. 1985, May 23, 2001 (10:57 AM), p.4, lines 20–25 and p.5, lines 1–2.

* * * * *

‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT.—The term ‘Environmental Water Account’ means the water account established by the CALFED agencies to provide

water for the protection and recovery of species of fish listed under section 4(c) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)) at no direct cost and no indirect cost to the water users, in the Bay–Delta watershed and export areas’’. 1

213

2 CALFED should return to Congress to authorize appropriations for any additional land acquisitions.

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, at p.10, lines 20–24, change lines 24–25 and delete all of lines 1–

10 on p. 11, substituting the following language:

* * * * *

‘‘(c)PROMOTION OF PARTNERSHIPS.—The joint structure proposed under this

section shall provide the following:

(1) The Governance Board shall adopt, no later than January 1, 2002, a safe harbors/assurances program voluntarily established by private landowners and local

agencies, such as the Partnerships For Restoration Program. Under this program,

the CALFED agencies shall partner with landowners and local agencies to develop

cooperating landowner commitments that will meet co-equal objectives to achieve

local agricultural resources baseline goals as defined in (2) below and to implement

the ecosystem restoration goals in the Record of Decision.

(2) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES BASELINE—It is necessary for a viable agricultural community to have a minimum acreage of prime, unique, and statewide importance farmland and associated water supply. This land and water must remain

available for agricultural production in the [defined geographic area, e.g., Yolo

County] for disposition as agreed upon by the affected farming community.

(iii) ‘‘Establish an Agricultural Water Account (AWA) similar in concept to the Environmental Water Account (EWA) as identified in the Record of Decision that requires a portion of any newly developed Bay–Delta Program water supply to be used

as agricultural mitigation water, based on the amount of agricultural water redirected to other uses as a result of Bay–Delta Program actions. The AWA may be

a component of the EWA.’’

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.12, change lines 13–17 to read as stated below and delete rest

of section.

* * * * *

‘‘(f) PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS.—The joint structure proposed under this

section shall provide that -

(1) before acquiring land as part of the CALFED program, the Governance Board

shall first conduct a survey to determine what land is currently owned by the Federal Government and is available to achieve identified CALFED program objectives.’’ 2

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.13, change lines 1–8, as follows:

* * * * *

‘‘(g) ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS OF RECORD OF DECISION—The joint structure proposed under this section shall provide that the Governance Board shall partner with private landowners and local agencies to develop cooperating landowner

commitments that will meet coequal objectives of achieving local economic and social goals and to implement the ecosystem restoration goals in the record of decision.’’

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.17, change to lines 5–13 to the following and delete rest of section.

* * * * *

‘‘(1) If, by December 31 of any year, the Environmental Water Account water purchase targets, or their functional equivalents, have not been met, the Federal agencies shall continue their efforts to meet the water purchase targets and shall make

use of the available Environmental Water Account assets to provide protection and

214

3This provision is inconsistent with section 4(8), especially lines 1 and 2 on p.5.

4Delete for 2 reasons: (1) Taking agricultural land out of production would qualify under A(ii);

and (2) section A(ii) does not take into account groundwater.

recovery for any species listed under section 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act of

1973 (16 U.S.C, 1533(c)).’’ 3

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.18, line 5, change the date to 2002.

* * * * *

‘‘(c) LAND ACQUISITION; MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIRED FOR EXISTING

LANDS.—The State agencies and the Federal agencies may not, under the interim

governance structure described in Attachment 3 of the record of decision, acquire

any additional lands for ecosystem restoration unless such agencies, through the

Secretary and by not later than January 1, 2002 develop a management plan for

all lands acquired by such agencies under such structure before the date of the enactment of this Act.

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.19 at line 9, change ‘‘affect’’ to ‘‘supercede’’.

* * * * *

‘‘Nothing in this paragraph is intended no shall be construed to supercede the requirements for the issuance of such permits and approvals.’’

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.20, lines 14–18, delete subsection A(ii).

* * * * *

‘‘(A) Whether a project—(i) increases yield. 4

* * * * *

Id. H.R. 1985, p.25, lines 11–18, add SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENTS.

* * * * *

‘‘(3) NEW PROJECTS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED.—The Governance Board,

through the Secretary, shall include in reports under this subsection each of the following new CALFED projects, as identified in the record of decision, by the dates

indicated:

(A) A project to raise the height of Shasta Dam, by January 1, 2004.

(B) South Delta Improvements and In–Delta storage; by January 1, 2002.’’

* * * * *

The Farm Bureau supports H.R. 1985 and looks forward to working with your

staff to cooperatively implement the goals of CALFED while minimizing the program’s effects upon our state’s valuable agricultural resources.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Wenger.

Ms. McPeak.

STATEMENT OF SUNNE MCPEAK, PRESIDENT/CEO,

BAY AREA COUNCIL

Ms. MCPEAK. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to appear

before you again today and also to have the opportunity to address

Congressmember Lofgren.

I represent the Bay Area Council, a business sponsored public

policy organization that covers the nine counties in the Bay Area.

215

The nine counties represent a population of about 6.5 million people and an economy that is approaching $250 billion annually.

I’m going to be a little bit provincial in my testimony talking

about the region. Clearly an economy of $250 billion requires water

quality and water supply in order to operate. But we have also

built our economy around a very fragile and special ecology, the

Bay-Delta estuary.

The Bay Area Council has a business set of leaders who have

been engaged in water policy for more than a decade closely following the CALFED process. I personally have been involved in

water for about 28 years in California.

We served on the Bay-Delta Advisory Committee. In fact, I cochaired it. Others will testify before you today also served and

those in the audience who are members of BDAC. The message we

want to underscore is one you’ve heard from us before.

I will reference a letter we sent dated June 1 to you supporting

your efforts and Senator Feinstein to introduce legislation to implement CALFED. The Bay Area Council also has joined with a number of other business organizations and labor organizations in

California and that letter was submitted as testimony on Saturday

in Modesto.

The message that is conveyed in this correspondence is the following. We have worked long and hard to come to an agreement

in California through the CALFED process and now with your

leadership please let us move forward in implementing those agreements.

It is not time to go back and reopen and renegotiate what was

a solution put forward that not only was balanced. You’ve heard

that word. Sometimes that means we are addressing simultaneously water supply, water quality, and fisheries, or that we are

fairly taking into account all of the needs of the region of the state.

That solution was also integrated. I’m going to use that word and

try to explain it. We advanced recommendations through the

CALFED process that said absolutely restore the Bay-Delta estuary, the environment. The ecosystem has to be fixed.

We also advanced recommendations that said please use water

as efficiently as possible. That means we save every last drop we

possibly can. We use every water efficiency measure that is available to us by conservation to reclamation to water marketing.

We also said you have to do facilities. Anyone who thinks we can

take care of the environment let alone the economy of this region

and all of California without that integrated solution simply doesn’t

understand the facts.

We come forward as, yes, the business community but also as ardent supporters of a restored environment that says please move

forward on CALFED.

In April I was also questioned by members of your committee regarding energy and power and perhaps the lessons to be learned

from the correct crisis that we are enduring in California so I

brought for you a report that I can submit in testimony that Jim

Cunneen and I and the Silicon Valley manufacturing group released in April that documents the situation, how do we get into

it, and also solutions.

216

The lessons that I think should be drawn from our energy predicament and applied to the water challenge facing us is the following

one. If you delay investing in infrastructure, you are ultimately

going to pay a higher price.

Secondly, we have to have adequate supply. You have to have capacity in the system. Thirdly, an integrated solution is the way to

be the most cost effective and environmentally sensitive. Optimize

conservation but also invest in infrastructure.

For water, yes, we need to pursue water efficiency measures and

do that immediately and simultaneously also pursue our investment in our storage, conjunctive use, storage underground and

above ground, and appropriate conveyance if we are going to have

improvement in our environment and fisheries, if we are going to

have adequate water supply, and sufficient quality to support not

only our economy but also our ecology. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McPeak follows:]

Statement of Sunne Wright McPeak, President & CEO, Bay Area Council

The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored, CEO-led, public-policy organization

founded in 1945 to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in the region.

The Bay Area region encompasses the nine counties that rim San Francisco Bay and

100 cities, including Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose, the heart of Silicon Valley. The economy of the Bay Area is approaching $250 billion annually. The regional

economy not only is dependent on an adequate supply of quality water to thrive,

but also is closely linked to the environmental health of the Bay–Delta Ecosystem.

As an association of major employers, the Bay Area Council has been involved in

California water policy issues for more than a decade and since 1994 has been deeply engaged in the Bay–Delta CALFED process.

The following points summarize the perspectives of the Bay Area Council as a regional organization of major employers with a history of involvement in California

water policy.

• California water policy is at a critical juncture. Decisions that are being made

today about how to improve California’s water infrastructure will having profound and lasting implications for the nation and the state, now the 5th largest

economic power in the world.

• Water policy decisions and the manner in which they are implemented will affect every resident and every business in California, which in turn has major

implications for the national economy.

• While we have come along way over the last several years to craft an action

plan to restore the critical hub of the state’s water system, the Bay–Delta, we

need investment to move that plan to reality.

• That is why the employers who are members of the Bay Area Council have invested in the development of the solutions and are now focusing authorize of

the funds necessary to implement the solutions. We have joined with other business organizations in California to advance workable solutions.

• Following the prolonged drought of the late 80s and early 90s, California businesses invested literally billions of dollars to increase their water efficiency, getting more production out of every gallon.

• Those efforts have paid off tremendously. California water agencies now serve

more people and industries than in the early 80s with almost the same amount

of water. However, as the limits of efficiency from the current supply are approached, new investments must be made.

• As we know, permanent reductions in water usage that have been achieved

through retrofitting industries with water efficient hardware lead to demand

hardening. This means that conservation efforts in the future will not free up

the additional water that will be needed to sustain a strong economy.

• Ironically, businesses that drive economic growth and productivity are among

the most dependent on reliable, high quality water.

• To ensure that the economy continues to thrive, business needs a reliable, good

quality supply of water. This is especially true in the high tech industry where

variances in supply and quality can translate into more costs and a higher bottom line.

217

• It goes without saying that thriving businesses lead to more jobs which leads

to a strong economy. Water is one of the key threads that holds those pieces

together.

• The demand for jobs will only increase as California’s population is estimated

to reach 40 million by 2010 and almost 50 million by 2020. The Bay Area is

projected to generate more than 1 million new jobs by 2020 and grow by perhaps as much as 1.4 million people.

• Last year, the state and federal government and stakeholders, including the

business community, supported the final plan to fix the Bay–Delta, California’s

major water infrastructure system. The plan is multi-faceted and calls for enormous investment in water quality and supply, as well as restoration of the environment.

• Severe water shortages and economic impacts are predicted for California if the

investments are not made now. In fact, it is likely that significant shortages and

economic impacts will be experienced before all of the improvements and facilities included in the Bay–Delta plan can be completed and brought on line.

• The current energy crisis in California is a stark reminder of what can happen

when investments are not made in infrastructure, resulting in deterioration of

both capacity and flexibility to meet normal demand levels, not to mention the

ability to respond in case of emergencies.

• The Bay–Delta program provides essential ingredients to rebuild the nation’s

water infrastructure in California. But significant financial resources will be

needed at both the federal and state level.

• The program calls for $1 billion to expand existing storage facilities and construct new ones. It includes $1 billion toward environmental and ecosystem restoration. Another $1 billion is earmarked to upgrade the aging water conveyance system. Improvements to drinking water quality for all water users is slated to receive $800 million. Approximately $1 billion is earmarked for water conservation and reclamation programs.

• These investments are critical to drought proof California and to protect this

vital economy.

• A federal funding authorization is pivotal to improving California’s water infrastructure.

Agreement last year on a plan of action signaled a new era of cooperation and

water management that is historic. It is time to seize this opportunity and move

forward. The Bay Area Council and major employers in the region join with business organizations throughout California in urging Congressional action to invest in

the water infrastructure needed to support the nation’s economy for the 21st Century. Attached is our letter of support for CALFED implementation legislation.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Estremera. It’s good to see you again.

STATEMENT OF TONY ESTREMERA, CHAIRMAN OF THE SANTA

CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. ESTREMERA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee including, of course, my own Representative Lofgren,

thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.

My name is Tony Estremera and I’m Chairman of the Santa

Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors. Let me begin by

welcoming you and the members of the Subcommittee to San Jose,

our home, and to express to you our appreciation for your leadership in moving forward with H.R. 1985.

Our Board recently took a support position on your bill and we

look forward to working with you and your staff as the bill moves

through the legislative process.

The Santa Clara Water District is the principal water supply

agency for Santa Clara County and the Silicon Valley. Our duties

include providing drinking water for more than 1.7 million people,

managing the local groundwater basin and providing flood management service for the entire county.

218

In an average water year more than half of the water used in

the county comes from the Bay-Delta watershed and in drier years

our reliance on Bay-Delta water reached as high as 90 percent so

I’m sure you can see why the reliability of our Bay-Delta supplies

is so important to us.

The residents and businesses of Silicon Valley also need a highquality water supply. Unfortunately, the quality of our Delta

sources ranks in the bottom 10th percentile nationwide and poses

constant challenges to us in treating this water to meet public

health standards.

Mr. Chairman, you asked us three questions. The first question

was what challenges do we face with regards to our water supply,

quality, and reliability. The principal challenge that we face is how

to provide a reliable high- quality water supply to our customers

in a practical, cost effective, and environmentally sensitive manner.

Our challenge has been made more difficult by regulatory

changes and fishery protection measures that resulted in a less secure lower quality water supply for our region. Restrictions in the

Delta have reduced the reliability of our imported supplies. Historically we could count on receiving most, if not all, of our entitlement

right from the Delta. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

Another problem is what we refer to as the low-point problem

that we have at St. Louis Reservoir. Before the last 5 years we

have been threatened with reservoir levels predicted to drop so low

and the object counties so high that we have suffered supply outages.

Fortunately, through heroic efforts we were able to avoid the situation but we can’t continue to operate in this way. That is why

the St. Louis Bypass Project is extremely important to our region.

The project will provide us with improved water supply, quality,

and greater flexibility in the operation of our St. Louis reservoir.

As I mentioned previously the reliability of our water supply has

decreased. This is particularly true of our supply from the CVP.

Therefore, it is essential that the Department of the Interior finalize the municipal and industrial water shortage policy so that we

know how reliable our CV supplies will be.

You also asked what steps we are taking to improve the quality

and reliability of our own water supplies. The District is implementing our integrated water resource plan that includes increased

levels of water conservation, recycling, banking, and transfer. Our

advanced planning has allowed us to cope with the 35 percent state

water project delivery this year but if the reduced deliveries continue, our local supplies will be exhausted.

The District is also leading the Bay Area Blending and Exchange

effort to explore opportunities to improve water quality and water

supply reliability at the regional level.

Finally, you asked what additional measures we needed to meet

our region’s immediate and long-term needs for secure water supply. We see those measures as the following:

1. Adequate Federal funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program including complementary actions like San Louis Bypass

Project and Bay-Area Blending and Exchange Program.

219

2. Clear, consistent, and coordinated implementation of administrative policies, regulatory decisions, and project operations so the

reliability of our supplies won’t suffer from any new initiatives.

3. An effective stakeholder based governance structure for the

CALFED Program.

4. A strong commitment by CALFED and the CALFED agencies

to invest in measures to improve Delta drinking water quality from

the source to the tap.

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

again for holding this hearing here in San Jose. On behalf of the

District Board of Directors I want to thank you for the leadership

that you have shown on what may be the most important resource

issue facing our state. For our part we pledge to work closely with

you and your staff as the CALFED bill moves through the legislative process. Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Estremera follows:]

Statement of Tony Estremera, Chairman of the Board of Directors,

Santa Clara Valley Water District

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

to provide testimony on Northern California Water Security—Opportunities and

Challenges. My name is Tony Estremera and I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Let me begin by welcoming you and the members of the Subcommittee to San

Jose, our home, and to express to you our appreciation for your leadership in moving

forward with H.R. 1985. As you are aware our Board of Directors recently took a

support position for H.R. 1985 and we look forward to working with you and your

staff as the bill moves through the legislative process.

The District is the stream management and wholesale water agency serving

Santa Clara County, including the high-tech area known as ‘‘Silicon Valley.’’ The

District provides the water supply that supports more than 1.7 million residents and

more than 6,000 high-tech businesses.

In an average year, more than half of the water supply in Santa Clara County

is imported from three sources: the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), the State

Water Project, and the Hetch Hetchy system owned and operated by the City and

County of San Francisco. Of the three imported sources, our federal Central Valley

Project water is the largest source of imported water. In drier years like the drought

from 1987 to 1992, the county’s dependence on imported water increases to as much

as 90 percent of the total supply. You can immediately see why the reliability of

our imported supplies from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is of such paramount importance to us.

The residents and businesses of Silicon Valley also demand a high quality water

supply. Unfortunately, the quality of our Delta sources ranks in the bottom 10th

percentile nationwide and poses constant challenges to urban water agencies that

need to treat this water to meet increasingly stringent standards for drinking water.

The high-tech and pharmaceutical industries in Silicon Valley also need a reliable

and consistently high quality supply to remain competitive worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation, you asked me to provide testimony to

the Subcommittee that focuses on three questions.

Question 1: What factors have led to the challenges that California is facing today in regards to water supply, quality and reliability?

The fundamental challenge that faces our district is this: How do we provide a

reliable, high quality water supply to our customers in a practical, cost-effective and

environmentally sensitive manner? You will find that other urban water agencies

around the Bay Area share similar challenges, although some of us are more dependent on the Delta, while others may have a more secure source of water.

Our task is made more difficult by regulatory changes that have occurred over

the past decade. Implementation of fishery protection measures under the Central

Valley Project Improvement Act and Endangered Species Act has resulted in a less

secure, lower quality water supply for our region. One example of this is the socalled ‘‘low point’’ problem at San Luis Reservoir, which has become a chronic worry

for the District.

220

In four of the last five years, operations forecasts during the spring months have

projected that San Luis Reservoir storage levels would drop during the late summer

months to a level that would cause serious water quality problems, and potentially

an interruption in federal water service. So far, each time this threat has occurred

we have been saved by a combination of extraordinary federal and state actions, and

cool weather that minimized demand. However, this year, we once again find ourselves facing a low point problem, this time without the benefit of above normal

rainfall.

This is the first dry year after a string of wet years, and we see that the federal

and state water systems already are being stretched to the limit. The CVP delivery

to South-of–Delta agricultural contractors is at 45 percent and the State Water

Project is only able to deliver 35 percent of our entitlements. What this demonstrates is the degree to which the system has been over extended to meet competing needs in the Delta, and the extent our deliveries have suffered as a consequence.

This year, and probably for the next few years, we’ll see our water supply challenges compounded by the power crisis in the Western states. The plumbing systems, ranging from individual wells to the gigantic federal system, are dependent

on a reliable and reasonably priced power supply to move the water from its source

to its final place of use. We have been threatened with additional ‘‘emergency’’ water

shortages because of power blackouts.

Another dimension of the additional challenge imposed by the power crisis is the

need for water for power generation. Many of the new power generation plants require water for cooling, which could lead to additional demand on an already limited

resource. Furthermore, we fear that existing reservoirs could be operated differently

to serve power generation needs and compete with water supply and delivery needs.

As the water management agency for a large metropolitan area, the District has

always been responsible for meeting the long-range water needs of its constituents.

Silicon Valley is still a dynamic economic engine for the whole nation. The District

will continue to be challenged to come up with the best and most comprehensive

way to meet existing and future water supply and water quality needs while protecting the environment and enhancing the quality of life for its constituents.

Question 2: What actions and measures have you taken to improve on the

supply, quality and reliability of your water?

The District adopted an Integrated Water Resource Plan in 1996 and has been

implementing that preferred strategy. The strategy includes a combination of increased conservation, recycling, banking and transfers. We have been building up

reserves in our local groundwater basins, as well as our banking program. Our advance planning has allowed us to cope with the 35 percent State Water Project delivery this year.

The District has developed a comprehensive water conservation program, which

includes implementation of all of the Best Management Practices for urban water

conservation. Examples include incentives for the installation of ultra low-flow toilets and other water saving appliances and programs to increase landscape irrigation efficiency.

The District is also a partner in the South Bay Water Recycling Project, which

serves the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose ́ and Milpitas, and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority, which serves the City of Gilroy. The District Board

has set a policy goal that by the year 2020, recycled water will account for 10 percent of the total water supply in Santa Clara County. Presently, the District is negotiating with the South Bay Water Recycling Project to own and operate the southern

portion of the recycled water system as part of the new power plant being built by

Calpine–Bechtel.

The highlight of the District’s Integrated Water Resource Plan is its emphasis on

flexibility to react to future changes. We are updating our plan to reflect the

changes that have occurred since 1996 and to adjust for new challenges in the future.

The District is also participating with other Bay Area water agencies to explore

opportunities to improve water quality and water-supply reliability at the regional

level. We are finishing Phase 1 of a CalFed-funded study that identified the needs

in the Bay Area. We are looking forward to Phase 2 of the study to more fully explore some of the opportunities that have been identified.

Earlier in my testimony, I mentioned that the power crisis has compounded our

water-supply challenges. The District is meeting that challenge head-on by instituting a ‘‘Water for Summer’’ campaign and program. We started to implement an

extensive outreach program to educate our constituents about the linkage between

power and water use, and that power conservation and water conservation go hand

in hand. Internally, the District has invested in backup power supplies and has

221

been working with our retail agencies to cope with what could be a long, hot summer.

Question 3: What additional measures may be needed in the short-, midand long-term future to improve your water security?

Four additional measures are needed to meet our region’s immediate and longterm needs for a secure water supply. Those measures are:

• Adequate federal funding for the CalFed Bay–Delta Program, including the complementary actions.

• Clear, consistent and coordinated implementation of administrative policies, regulatory decisions, and project operations.

• An effective, stakeholder-based governance structure for the CalFed program.

• A strong commitment by CalFed and the CalFed agencies to invest in measures

to improve Delta drinking-water quality from source to tap.

I will address each of these measures individually.

CalFed has made great progress toward restoring the health of the Bay–Delta ecosystem under the combined efforts of the state and federal governments and a broad

group of stakeholders. During CalFed’s planning stage, nearly $675 million in federal, state and local funding was spent or committed to 266 approved ecosystem restoration projects. As a result, salmon populations have rebounded in the Sacramento

River and its tributaries and in other key watersheds.

The CalFed Record of Decision calls for similar investments in the areas of a reliable water supply, water quality and a stable levee system. The state’s voters approved funding for these investments with the passage of Proposition 13, a $1.97

billion state bond issue. Local interests are also investing billions of dollars in new

management techniques to address these issues. Now, it is time for the federal government to fund its share of the CalFed Program. The first step in this process is

the passage of legislation that authorizes federal funding for the entire CalFed program, including complementary actions such as the San Luis Bypass Project and

Bay–Area Blending and Exchange Program.

A second immediate need concerns the coordination and implementation of administrative policies, regulatory conditions, and state and federal project operations. As

you are no doubt aware, the federal agencies with regulatory authority over the

Bay–Delta have competing and sometimes conflicting missions and mandates.

CalFed was established, in part, to address this issue. And, while the CalFed agencies have worked toward better coordination of their policies and regulatory conditions, the results have been imperfect. To avoid conflicts between competing priorities for resource management, the CalFed reauthorization legislation should encourage the clear, consistent and coordinated implementation of policies, regulatory

decisions and project operations. For example, to ensure that water-delivery goals

for Central Valley Project agricultural contractors do not result in adverse impacts,

the legislation should clarify water delivery goals for municipal and industrial customers consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation’s Municipal and Industrial Interim Reliability Policy.

We believe that many of these conflicts can be addressed through the establishment of a strong, stakeholder-based governance structure for the CalFed program.

We are pleased to see that H.R. 1985 envisions such a structure, and would require

the new governance board to coordinate implementation of all relevant programs,

including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The bill would also require

the board to coordinate and integrate goal setting and funding to ensure the most

cost-effective and biologically effective investment of federal funds. We would add

to that list of responsibilities that important task of ensuring balanced and timely

implementation of the projects and programs in the CalFed Record of Decision.

Finally, we are looking for a strong commitment from the CalFed agencies to invest in those improvements needed to achieve the targets for drinking-water quality

identified in the Record of Decision. As an urban agency dependent on the Delta

for its drinking water supplies, we are concerned about the quality of that water

and the cost of treating water to meet increasingly stringent standards for drinking

water. The CalFed reauthorization legislation should make water quality a priority

on a par with water supply and ecosystem improvements.

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

this hearing and providing me the opportunity to discuss the Silicon Valley region’s

water-security concerns. On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Board

of Directors, I want to thank you for the leadership you have shown on what may

be the most important resource issue facing this state—how to reconcile the needs

of urban and agricultural economies and the ecosystem for high-quality, reliable

water supplies. For our part, we pledge to work closely with both you and Senator

Feinstein as both bills move through the legislative process.

222

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

As many of you know, I’ve been traveling around the state and

have met most of you individually or with groups or other testimony over the last number of months. I took on this responsibility

understanding the fact that water in California is probably the

most controversial subject, or one of the most controversial subjects

that we deal with but something that we must deal with.

With the CALFED authorization expiring, we need to move forward with that legislation. Those here most understand what we

attempted to do in H.R. 1985 which one is obviously reauthorized

CALFED. Also to move toward what is determined within that

agreement, that additional storage, as Ms. McPeak very ably pointed out, and both Senator Feinstein and I do that on her legislation

and mine..

And then added to that and I call it CALFED Plus, what Mr.

Estremera also pointed out, was that we have water shortages beyond what is involved in CALFED; to allow local communities to

develop water resources-reclamation.

I don’t know very many people that are opposed to reclamation

and reutilizing our water supply. Conjunctive use, groundwater

storage, other ways of developing water resources throughout the

State of California and, quite frankly, put the Federal resources

there to help instigate those type of projects, $4 billion in authorization for leverages both state and local money to build those

projects that are absolutely necessary.

As Mr. Cunneen pointed out, we are going to be limited to the

Colorado River to our proper allocation, as the upper basin states

would say, to 4.4 million acre-feet. We are drafting about 5.6 million acre-feet presently.

Court orders, and probably properly so, have restricted the city

of Los Angeles to Owens Valley to Mona Lake and right here in

the northern part of the state the Trinity River decision which

loses an additional 300,000 acre-feet of water.

What does that say? We have a diminishing supply and increasing demand so we are attempting in a responsible way to address

that in H.R. 1985. I appreciate your testimony.

One question from a business perspective. I heard from Mr.

Cunneen, Ms. Davis, Ms. McPeak about long-term business decisions. I used to be in the business community and I understand

when you are making decisions to expand a plant or to build a new

plant facility that you have to look at the local economy.

You have to look at if you’re going to have enough electricity, if

you’re going to have enough water, what is the cost of those basic

commodities and how that is going to effect your manufacturing

process in your competitiveness in the world market place.

So what about that? How is industry today looking at California

and, obviously, specifically water? I mean, obviously we have an

electricity problem in this state that we are trying to address but

how is that playing with water right now? Maybe we can start with

Mr. Cunneen and any other person who might want to make a

point. We’re rationing microphones, too.

Mr. CUNNEEN. Well, I think that the direct answer is that we

may be losing some short-term decisions, tactical decisions that

companies make as to where to expand some operations. I do beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
223

lieve that is short-term. I believe the industries here are committed

for the long-term still to Silicon Valley and to California.

What they really desperately want is a feeling that there is a

plan out there whether it’s in the case of electric utility reorganizations or if it’s in the case of water. They want to make sure that

we are all on the same page, going in the same direction, and that

there’s an honest plan.

I remember on the floor of the Assembly in the State Legislature

when we were debating the electric deregulation issue the issue of

supply came up. The answer was very clear. Don’t worry. The flow

of power from out of state will continue unimpeded to California

while we require utilities to divest from their own power generating ability.

Now, that sounds almost silly now looking back at it. It’s easy

to see that would not occur. That would not be the case. From the

business community’s perspective we are asking you, Chairman

Calvert, and Congresswoman Lofgren, and Senator Feinstein,

please don’t let it get to an absolute crisis like this because it will

be more severe in the case of water. It will be lasting damage.

We’ll ride out some of these rolling blackouts but in the case of

water, it is crucial to the manufacturing process. It’s crucial that

we have storage conveyance and strong environmental protections.

Don’t let it get to a crisis. Act now in this session of Congress.

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Calvert. Santa Clara is Intel’s

corporate headquarters and it’s our home and it will always be our

home. Having said that, to put it in perspective, what we do in

Santa Clara is we build the mask which is the mold for the microprocessor. Then that product is then shipped to other facilities in

which they make the actual product.

It is a critical component of the whole process. You can’t build

it without the mask obviously. We do look at resource as a major

impact to our manufacturing process. My thought on the question

that you asked is that on the heels of the energy issue it is definitely something that not just Intel but every corporation looks at

and has to consider.We appreciate all the work that you’ve done

with regards to the water issue, and Congresswoman Lofgren as

well.

But, do answer your question, Santa Clara is our corporate headquarters and our home and we want it to remain that way and do

plan that it stays that way. Anything that you can do in your committee and Congresswoman Lofgren to ensure that California remain a solid economy, a solid place to do business is greatly, greatly appreciated.

Ms. MCPEAK. We do hear that water, water supply and water

quality, are issues that are taken into account in making decisions

for expansion and location. I have not heard in the last, say, 3

years a company who says, ‘‘I’m moving because we don’t have an

adequate water supply,’’ but they will say they are taking it into

account for their future plans.

That really does speak to quality as well as quantity, particularly

in the high-tech manufacturing sector.

But I do want to underscore something I’ve had personal experience with out of state, out of state campaigns or other regions trying to recruit businesses and, of course, they site among the reaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
224

sons why somebody should leave California or the Bay Area water,

now power.

Zoe will remember an effort where we had the national wind tunnel complex that we were very much in competition pursuing with

NASA Ames and it took a ton of effort to be able to demonstrate

to the aerospace industry that there could be available water

through reclamation, i.e., recycling, that actually would satisfy

their needs, and (b) that we were addressing the problem through

CALFED.

We do not want to take a big step backwards by not now going

forward to implement as you have well outlined. Yes, it’s a real

issue that is taken into account.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. MCPEAK. May I also add what we consider business and employment in California and in the Bay Area as well, agriculture is

part of the business community so I didn’t want to overlook what

Mr. Wenger had said. You heard firsthand the perspective that the

agricultural community now has in California which is greater uncertainty and we do not want to lose that segment of our industry

in either the region or the state.

Mr. CALVERT. In spite of the success of the high-tech industry

and the entertainment industry here in California, certainly aerospace industry in California, we should not forget that the largest

industry in the State of California is still agriculture.

They have done a great job not only for this region but for our

state and for our country. It’s one of our bright spots on the balance sheet on our trade program throughout the world so we certainly appreciate that industry and hope it can survive a very difficult year. I know many farmers are having a very difficult time.

Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. It’s fun to see you, Sunne, and I think we first met

each other when I was on the board of supervisors of this county

and you were on the board of supervisors in Contra Costa. I was

thinking back to the water wars of that time.

I remember growing up in this valley. We felt that we were

northern Californians and they were taking our water. It really

wasn’t until much later that I realized that Santa Clara County is

really in exactly the same spot in terms of water importation as

Los Angeles or Southern California. We are dependent on the

water of others as much as our neighbors to the south.

Having said that, however, we are also quite fond of our Bay and

we want to make sure that whatever we do does not adversely impact our environment. As you and I both know, that is an intense

priority for the people of the Bay Area including Santa Clara County.

In a way I’m almost afraid to ask this question but I think it is

important that we face up to the challenges that are heading for

us and come up with the plan that is reasonably designed to meet

those challenges. I think reasonable people can differ on the details

but all of us should agree that is something we need to do.

As you know, Senator Feinstein has a bill that is not exactly the

same but quite similar to Mr. Calvert’s bill. Mr. Miller has a bill

that has different elements. I’m wondering if any of the members

have had a chance to analyze the differences between the Miller

225

approach, the Calvert approach, the Feinstein approach and are

there elements that ought to be brought to—

Mr. CALVERT. Mine’s better.

Ms. LOFGREN. I know that you believe that—that are missing in

each. Are there conglomerations that should occur or criticisms

that you can offer on shortfallings so that we can come up with the

best solution for our state?

Ms. MCPEAK. Let me try to address it. I will tell you that I could

not do a line-by-line comparison, although I have—

Ms. LOFGREN. I wouldn’t ask you to do that.

Ms. MCPEAK. —read the legislation. There is a difference, a fundamental difference and approach that also reflects what had been

sort of one of the divisions within the CALFED process at BDAC

and within the state that goes to the fact that people of good will

can have sincere differences and almost two different world views.

That was all I could do to explain it when Secretary Babbitt

asked me why is there such a divide between a lot of us who are

supporting a package that had a presumption that we were going

to need facilities and others with whom I had stood in the past who

presumed that it could be done without facilities and also wanted

to delay taking the steps toward those facilities. It comes down to

that fundamentally different world view.

I think it bears a little bit of elaboration so I’m going to do so.

The advocates who have suggested Federal legislation that still

doesn’t streamline getting to a decision on facilities is sort of one

camp.

I view what Chairman Calvert and Senator Feinstein are doing,

although there are differences within their legislation, as taking all

of the CALFED Record of Decision as a package. That’s why I tried

to emphasize that there is an integrated solution as the Bay Area

Council views this, and I think the business community largely

within the Bay Area.

There are times when we have no rain fall, sometimes we have

a lot of rainfall. We look at the fact that we need more water for

the environment and we need water of sufficient temperature at

the right time in the estuary. But if that is going to happen and

still sustain the economy and deliver water in other regions of the

state, we’ve got to be able to capture that water when it comes

down in bucketsful, either precipitation or snowmelt.

That is why we have gone forward saying we respectfully disagreement with those who say you can do it only with conservation

or reclamation because, yes, we can get a whole lot of water efficiency and stretch the average supply in that method and we add

to that water marketing.

We want to introduce price signals into the management of

water. We need to be aware of what kind of dislocation that has,

third-party impacts, and I could elaborate on that as well.

However, having said that, we also think in order to have enough

water for the environment in times of low rainfall, particularly that

third, fourth, fifth year of, say, a drought and water on an ongoing

basis for the economy that we’ve got to have off-stream storage and

we have to improve some of the on-stream storage capturing capability.

226

That’s how I actually explain what we’ve got to divide again in

Congress, we’ve got to divide in camps in California. It’s different

world views who will say no more facilities because anymore water

you take out of the environment is an injury to the environment.

I will sit here and tell you I’ve got at least enough battle scars

presumably to have the credentials in fighting for the environment

that says I will make that trade to have more water in periods of

low rainfall of the right temperature to release into the estuary

and that requires storage.

Mr. CUNNEEN. I just want to make sure the most important point

of that isn’t lost, which is that Congressman Calvert’s approach

and Senator’s Feinstein’s approach we believe incorporate that integrated view that Sunne is talking about.

The Phase II Record of Decision was a careful balance but it included storage and conveyance off- stream/on-stream has to be included in a final package with Federal leadership. I think that is

the biggest divide between those two approaches and Congressman

Miller’s approach and why we prefer Chairman Calvert’s approach.

Mr. WENGER. From our perspective with the Congressman’s bill

we feel there is the timeliness involved. We’ve heard a lot of lip

service over the years of we’ll study storage, we’ll study storage,

we’ll study storage. Certainly in the Congressman’s bill there are

timeliness. If we are going to do them, let’s do it by a certain

timeline and take a look.

That’s not going to say what facility is going to be built or where

but if we say we’re going to do it, then let’s do it. Let’s have some

time frames so we can get on with at least getting these studies

done and know what the results of those studies are going to be.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. And I appreciate that. I wanted to point out and

ask a couple of other questions. This legislation attempts to be a

little proactive and try to get ahead of the problem in attempting

to hopefully not have a problem—as big a problem as we may have

in California and to prevent making bad choices.

I would say as we had a witness from Ducks Unlimited up in

Modesto who made a point that we don’t want bad choices being

made. What that witness meant by that was if, in fact, there is a

crisis in California in the future where we start making choices for

farming or water for the environment or water for urban users or

industrial users, there’s no happy solution.

If from a political perspective he indicated probably the environment would lose the most if we had to make those kinds of decisions because of the reality of politics today in trying to satisfy the

most number of people with a limited amount of supply. We don’t

want to get to that and that is what we’re trying to do.

Mr. Estremera, I wanted to ask a question of you. Even if we

move forward with the Record of Decision including the part that

would augment storage in California based upon the fact that, as

I mentioned earlier, diminishing supply not including what we

would get through the Record of Decision.

These reclamation projects that I hear about from every water

district in the state and conjunctive use and all these other things

we went through, the section that we put in the bill that induces,

you know, gives a lot of encouragement to these agencies to move

227

forward because we put money there, do you think—what do you

think would happen if those types of projects aren’t built in the

state of California?

Mr. ESTREMERA. Mr. Chairman, I can certainly respond with respect to our own county. As you know, we have our own long-term

resources plan and we have tried to be prudent as most of our business community has said. We try to plan as best as we can.

As you know, our approach here as a water district has been that

our role is not to determine how fast we grow, whether we grow

or not. Our role is to provide the water that people need in the

county. The decisions are made by other municipalities so we try

our best to have the resources planned.

In our resources plan we have about a 20 percent plan of recycled water being a real necessary portion of our water supply in the

future so if we didn’t have that capability, if we didn’t build that

capability, we would be, I think, in serious trouble.

This is one reason why we have adamantly tried to participate

in recycling over the years. This is why we are, in fact, right now

in negotiations with respect to extension of the present pipeline of

recycled water down into the Coyote Valley because we want to

make sure that recycling is an effective portion of our supply.

If we don’t have the support either nationally or statewide and,

of course, in our case where we match money all the time, we’re

not going to be an effective provider of water. There is no question

that our economy is going to seriously suffer from it so these

projects and this support is really important. In fact, as I say, it

is ultimately important for our provision of supply locally.

We try and plan as best as we can but we also have to provide

and we have to provide consistent with that plan and consistent

with the needs of the economy. We can’t do without that help so

we really appreciate that provision. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Any other comments on this?

Ms. MCPEAK. Just to quickly add to what Tony said. The reclamation is essential not only for the mix; that is, to have that additional supply. It is also for timing because it’s not likely that we

are going to be able to bring on line the amount of supply that is

going to be contributed by new storage before we can do the reclamation. We need to do that first and optimize it.

It also allows us to minimize the amount of surface storage. That

is the other role so it is a blend of our supply sources and, therefore, greater flexibility. It is a timing issue. We need to do it as

soon as possible. We also are able to minimize the amount of surface storage and conjective use because of reclamation.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. GAINES. Mr. Chairman, one last comment if I could. Our association does support increased storage. The devil is in the details,

of course. Where that storage is, how it’s built, how the water is

delivered, and so forth, is something we would take a very, very

close look at.

Clearly if they are going to put an additional storage, though, the

loss of habitat, the possible loss of the environment by putting that

storage in place is something that would be of great concern to us.

Our waterfowl, of course, would benefit from increased storage as

well. You talked about choices, though, and it’s not always simply

228

a choice between the environment or a choice between urban users

or farming users. I would like to point to the Klamath Basin and

what is going on right now as a sample of that.

As you probably know, there’s three listed species of fish up

there that are holding not only the local agricultural community,

the local community as a whole, but also one of the most important

refuges in the entire National Wildlife Refuge System hostage right

now.

We have a documented 430 wildlife species that depend upon the

Klamath Refuge Complex. Those 430 species are being held hostage by simply three species so it’s a case where there’s decisions

within the environment as well.

If they had additional storage up there right now, we wouldn’t

be looking at zero water to the agricultural community and zero

water to the refuges. That is an example of where it can get much,

much worse than it is in the Central Valley right now. I think we

need to look outside our Central Valley borders and see what is

happening elsewhere, most notably in the Klamath Basin. If we

don’t act now, we simply may not have time to act in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to chair that hearing.

It was the largest Congressional hearing in the history of the

United States, as I understand it, in a small town. A lot of tragedy

going on. I heard many people are losing everything that they own

and it cries for—those types of problems none of us in elected office

like to come up with or deal with. We would rather try to stop that

before it gets that bad.

Any comments?

Mr. GAINES. We view that as the canary in the mine shaft. We

really do. It will happen down here sometime in the future if we

don’t deal with these issues now.

Ms. LOFGREN. Just one quick follow-up question on the supply.

Sunne, what do you anticipate in terms of volume that will come

from the new storage capacities? Is there an amount that has been

identified?

Ms. MCPEAK. If you’re talking about yield versus capacity, a lot

of that is still going to go through further study and analysis and

it’s surface and groundwater for conjunctive use that would make

a difference.

But I can assure you that actually when we do the math and

look at the water that can be generated from efficiencies, conservation, reclamation, conservation urban, ag reclamation, watershed

management, water marketing, which we can probably get to, I

don’t know, maybe 2 or 2.5 million acre-feet or perhaps more, and

look at the growing demands and the reduction such as the Colorado River or the Trinity groundwater pumping overdraft, there’s

a gap that is anywhere from depending on the year half a million

to maybe 1.5 million acre-feet in the next 20 years.

We think storage needs to contribute about, at least what we’re

trying to plan, hopefully anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 acrefeet in yield. That is possibly what you can get from looking at a

large Shasta, doing maybe a new reservoir conjunctive use, and

perhaps Eel River has been identified as a in-Delta facility.

229

There are others who can give you more detail but that is the

order of magnitude.

If, for example, you’ll hear maybe testimony about climate

changes will reduce snowpack making more precipitation. The implications there are that we need to have the off-stream storage to

actually capture the precipitation which comes down faster than

snowmelt as an example. You’ve got to have the ability to suck up

the water fast and put it into storage, off-stream storage, so you

are not impairing in-stream flows.

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, Mr. Wenger.

Mr. WENGER. Just to make a comment. When you talk about

storage, we’re living off the storage that our forefathers did 70 or

80 years ago to put people to work. They always talk about the big

dam. As we heard here earlier, the loss of habitat for reservoirs.

I would just like to make a comment.

I grew up on the Stanislaus River and I can remember back in

’76 when people were chaining themselves to rocks because they

didn’t want to see the New Melones raise because the water was

going to inundate some areas. If you look at the salmon fishery in

the Stanislaus River today, it is better than it has ever been in my

lifetime and it is in no small part because of New Melones having

the water that can release at times it needs to release it.

Certainly there’s some gravel beds that may weaken reconstitute

gravel beds and do things like that. When you start talking about

multiple uses, you just think about this weekend where everybody

is going to be. They are going to be at Don Pedro. They are going

to be at Shasta. They are going to be at all those places recreating.

You think about all the habitat that is created.

Between here as I drove here, there’s a lot of dry hills and I’ve

got some friends that are cattle ranchers up there. They put in a

one-acre little pond. You wouldn’t believe the wildlife that comes

because of water. We’ve got to have the water. We’ve got to have

the storage. I don’t think we can just focus on what are we going

to need in 20 years. We had better be focusing on what we are

going to need in 50, 75, and 100 years.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I want to thank this panel for your testimony and answering our questions. We certain appreciate your

coming out on this July 4th week. Thank you very much.

We will now call our second panel.

We want to thank all of you for coming out today. You probably

heard my prior announcement about the five- minutes and all the

little lights here. We appreciate that you keep the testimony within

5 minutes were we have time for Q&A.

With that, Mr. Guardino, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF CARL GUARDINO, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF

THE SILICON VALLEY MANUFACTURING GROUP

Mr. GUARDINO. Good morning, Chairman Calvert and

Congressmember Lofgren. Thank you so much for holding this important hearing in Silicon Valley.

As you may know, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group was

founded in 1977 by David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett Packard

Company. Today it represents 190 of the largest private sector emVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
230

ployers in all of Silicon Valley who collectively provide 275,000 jobs

just in this valley alone, or one of every four private sector workers.

Quick overview of Silicon Valley. Where we are this morning the

population of the valley, which is Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa

Clara Counties, is only 11 percent of our state’s population but produces more than 20 percent of the personal income taxes for 1999

and 2000 for the State of California.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. GUARDINO. Our pleasure. Silicon Valley is responsible for 16

percent of the state’s revenues from taxable sales in 1999. And relative to exports, just two-thirds of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara and

Alameda Counties alone, which are only 8 percent of the state’s

population, account for 33 percent of the state’s export sales in

1999.

Truly Silicon Valley’s current and future success is coughing up

a substantial amount of revenue for state and Federal coffers. We

want to continue to prosper so that we can do our share to protect

this great state and nation’s economy and quality of life.

Relative to water, after energy, we see water as potentially the

next big crisis facing our state and nation. Yet, this time, unlike

the energy crisis that we are currently in, we have a chance to divert a crisis rather than dig out from it so we really commend you,

Chairman Calvert, Congressmember Lofgren, for having the foresight to move forward now as expeditiously and thoughtfully as

possible rather than to react to the crisis that is coming.

The Manufacturing Group sees four key points critical to any legislation that moves forward and these are actually in order.

First, an effective stakeholder-based governance structure for the

CALFED Program. Second, an adequate Federal funding for the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Third, a strong commitment by

CALFED and the CALFED agencies to invest in measures to improve Delta drinking water quality from stream to spigot. Fourth,

a clear, consistent, and coordinated implementation of administrative policies, regulatory decisions, and project operations.

Chairman Calvert, we commend you and Senator Feinstein for

continuing to try to work together to harmonize your bills in a bipartisan/bicameral fashion and strike a balance that protects our

environment, enhances our quality of life, and strengthens our

economy for every employer and working family in California.

In a past life I was Chief Assistant to a state legislature who was

a dairy farmer. On issues regarding water we viewed these as so

critical that we always saw the link as you referred to earlier between the importance of major industries in California from agriculture to high-tech or, as we lovingly refer to, from cow chips to

computer chips. Because we see the link, we want to work with you

for the good of all Californians in the prosperity of California’s

economy. Thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guardino follows:]

Statement of Carl Guardino, President and CEO, Silicon Valley

Manufacturing Group

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, as President and CEO of the

Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, I am speaking for the interests of a diverse

range of member companies from the Silicon Valley area. The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group was founded in 1977 by David Packard, and today represents 190

231

companies employing one quarter of the Silicon Valley workforce. The Manufacturing Group focuses their efforts on public policy issues regarding business competitiveness and quality of life in the region.

The significance of a reliable and clean supply of water to the region cannot be

overstated. Constraints on water supply are increasing on all sides. Some constraints are the result of our growing awareness and consideration of environmental

and habitat values and the economic and quality of life contributions they make to

the region. Other constraints are the price we pay for our success. With an increase

in employment of approximately 25% over the last 5 years, there are more people,

more businesses, and a greater overall demand for quality water supplies. An infrastructure that reliably provides high quality water is a foundation of both economic

prosperity and community quality of life. Wise and efficient management of water

that ensures a balance of all water needs: agricultural, urban, environmental, and

commercial/industrial should not be impeded by an inadequate infrastructure. An

infrastructure that permits water transfers, recycled water distribution, and efficient water use will become increasingly important as constraints upon water supply and quality increase as the region continues to grow.

The Valley’s high-tech and pharmaceutical/biotech industries demand a consistent, high-quality supply to support their manufacturing, research and development needs. Companies such as Intel and LSI Logic invest in additional treatment

processes to remove any traces of metals, organics, and salts. Variability in quality

can cause plant shut downs for recalibration. If local water suppliers experience

variations in the quality of water supplies from state or federal project sources, or

must switch sources of supply due to interruptions in service, this can have significant adverse economic impacts for companies that are vulnerable to these changes.

Similarly, our region’s research institutions, the R&D portions of our pharmaceutical/biotech companies and industries with water-dependent processes would be

devastated by interruptions in supply.

Recently, the Bay Area Water Users Association publicized a San Francisco PUC

finding that a significant seismic event could leave the region’s residents supplied

by the Hetch–Hetchy system without water for 20 to 60 days. So many critical systems rely upon water: cooling and heating our buildings, providing sanitation, irrigation, fire suppression, critical cleaning and manufacturing processes in industry.

The need for water permeates all facets of our modern life. The cost of a rolling

blackout can be fairly well accounted for. But, the cost of lost research, lost product,

lost business and the social costs of this kind of infrastructure failure are simply

incalculable.

The Manufacturing Group has participated in water quality and supply planning

with regional partners, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Bay

Area Water Users Association. Locally these efforts have included plans for increasing conservation, recycling and recycled water distribution, water transfers and

groundwater banking. Because the integrity of water supply infrastructures is essential, we are encouraging the San Francisco PUC to hasten their progress on their

Capital Improvement Plan to upgrade the aging and seismically vulnerable Hetch–

Hetchy system that 2.4 million residents of the Bay Area rely upon.

The continued growth of industry in the Silicon Valley region depends as much

on maintaining the region’s quality of life as it does on maintaining business-related

infrastructure. The need for clean, quality, reliable water for drinking, recreation

and habitat maintenance is just as important. Business leaders understand that

water supply and water quality are fundamental indicators of the quality of life.

Based on my personal knowledge of business leader’s concerns, I can state that if

we don’t have the best air, water and land, we’re not going to have the best people.

Meeting the region’s and the state’s diverse water needs in the future will require

the most creative, coordinated and thoughtful efforts of community, government and

business acting in partnership. We support the efforts of the State and federal

agencies to find a solution to improve water supply, water quality and environmental resources through the CALFED process.

We thank you for the concern and leadership you have shown on this issue. We

look forward to working with you and your staff in the future. On behalf of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide these comments.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Wells.

232

STATEMENT OF MARY WELLS, CHAIRWOMAN,

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION

Ms. WELLS. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.

My name is Mary Wells. I’m a landowner on the west side of the

Sacramento Valley where my husband, Charles, and I own row

crop ground and farm rice in three irrigation districts all delivered

from and dependent upon the great Sacramento river.

In addition, we own rangeland where we live and our family cattle operation continues in the small foothill community known as

Sites.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and provide a farming landowner’s perspective on the water supply challenges that have spawned years of effort and action.

Today, however, I applaud the tremendous opportunity in my

part of the state not only to provide water efficiency and security

in my region, but also to effectively assist in the resolution of water

issues in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and far beyond.

A reliable and affordable water supply is vital to my family’s

farming operation. Because of this, I serve as a Director on the

boards of Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, known as the T-C, and

two irrigation districts. Because water issues transcend local impacts, I became a founding Director of the Northern California

Water Association in 1992 where today I serve as Chairman.

For years Sacramento Valley residents have experienced a continuing increase in environmental and other regulatory demands.

For 25 years landowners in my area have been involved in aggressive conservation and restoration efforts to meet these needs, but

our struggle to meet these demands grows more and more difficult.

For example, I have personally experienced water shortages as

low as 25 percent allocation during seven out of the last 20 years.

I have spoken for many years about our despair but today I am

here to speak of opportunity as offered in H.R. 1985.

In integrated water management program for the Sacramento

Valley will improve water supply, quality, and reliability. This plan

is reflected in the development of the Sacramento Valley Water

Management Agreement which was finalized when the State Water

Resources Control Board postponed Phase 8 of the Bay- Delta

Water Rights Proceedings. This agreement is now the template for

our regional strategy in the Sacramento Valley.

The Sacramento Valley water management agreement will concentrate efforts most notably through groundwater management

activities, evaluation of the sites, off-stream reservoir, flood protection, water transfers and exchanges, watershed management, fish

passage, and other environmental improvements.

The resulting regional commitments is focused on meeting all of

the water supply needs within the Sacramento Valley first every

year while helping to provide for Bay-Delta water quality standards, export supplies, and even the environmental water account.

The following actions as part of the regional integrated management plan will begin to achieve the commitment to landowners like

me within the basin who face increased water shortages.

The first item would be the intra-regional water transfers. The

Central Valley Project, or CVPIA, contains a provision to facilitate

and endorse this intra-regional transfers in the Sacramento Valley

233

for CVP project water. For many years the T-C has benefitted from

some water transfers. However, there is a need for the Bureau of

Reclamation, as a partner, to further exercise its discretion in a

manner that will expedite and make affordable such transfers from

neighboring water suppliers.

The second action would be the conveyance of water in Federal

facilities. There is now a tremendous opportunity to convey water

including transferred, exchanged, or remanaged water through

Federal facilities. This can be done under the CVPIA or the Warren

Act. The key, however, is for the Bureau of Reclamation to utilize

its discretion again under these laws to expedite rather than

hinder conveyance of this water in an economically feasible manner

to the landowners in the region.

A third action is Sites off-stream reservoir. The flexibility of the

state’s water system would be greatly enhanced with the construction of Sites reservoir. I have a unique interest in the development

of this project. As I mentioned, my property is in the footprint of

the proposed Sites reservoir.

My rangeland and home of 27 years will be flooded by the Sites

reservoir once it is filled. I only have to look over the hill into the

Sacramento Valley where all of our irrigated farmland, our livelihood, and that of my children and that of my grandchildren are so

dependent upon securing reliable water supplies. If we succeed in

this integrated endeavor, so shall the rest of California have an opportunity for a more secure and adaptable water supply.

In closing, there is a vision in the north that the Sacramento

Valley will be able to provide substantial contributions to help provide water security throughout the state but this can only occur

when we are empowered a regional solution like the integrated program of water management and supply activities that I have described today.

The combination of facilities, management, regulatory streamlining, and sound use of discretion by Federal and state agencies

can assure local landowners like me that are needs will be met.

Such local solutions will far better utilize each region’s water resources, and thereby make water available to resolve much of

California’s growing water needs.

I thank you and I thank you for your continued support of agriculture.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wells follows:]

Statement of Mary Wells, Sacramento Valley Landowner, Maxwell,

California

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Mary Wells. I am a

landowner on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, where my husband, Charles,

and I own row crop ground and farm rice in three irrigation districts all diverting

water from and dependent upon the great Sacramento River. In addition, we own

rangeland where we live and our family cattle operation continues, in the rolling

foothill community known as Sites, located 10 miles west of Interstate 5 and the

small town of Maxwell. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to

provide a farming landowner’s perspective on the water supply challenges that have

spawned years of effort and action. However, today, I must applaud the tremendous

opportunity in my part of the state to not only provide water efficiency and security

to my region, but also to effectively assist in the resolution of water issues in the

San Francisco Bay–Delta and beyond.

A reliable and affordable water supply is vital to my family’s farming operation.

Because of this, I serve as a Director to the boards of Westside Water District, MaxVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
234

well Irrigation District, and the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority (T–C). Because

water issues transcend local impacts, I became a founding Director of the Northern

California Water Association in 1992, where today I serve as Chairman. My perspective has further been shaped by the 21 years of water-related employment, including

General Manager of Westside Water District and Administrator to Maxwell Irrigation District.

Water is delivered to our row crop ground from Lake Shasta, down the Sacramento River to the Red Bluff diversion dam, where it is diverted into the

Tehama–Colusa Canal for a severity to ninety mile journey to the Westside Water

District. The eighteen T–C districts are water service contractors with the Central

Valley Project (CVP).

For years, Sacramento Valley residents have experienced a continuing increase in

environmental and other regulatory demands on the region’s water supply both from

within the region and from other areas of the state. Landowners and other water

users have been involved in aggressive conservation and restoration efforts to meet

all of the needs in the region. But, our struggle to meet these demands grows more

difficult. For example, agricultural water users on the T–C are only receiving 60

percent of their contract allocation this year, after five consecutive wet years in

California. As a result, I have personally experienced water shortages during seven

out of the last twenty years. For two of these seven years, we received only 25 percent of our contract allocation.

This hopefully dispels a common misperception that water users north of the

Bay–Delta are flush in water and always receive a full allocation every year. In fact,

many of the diverters in my region, particularly along the T–C are short of water

even in 100 percent supply years due to the moratorium placed on additional contracts in 1977 while these districts were still being completed. This condition is only

made worse in years of reduced supply. Because of increased shortages and other

system-wide issues in the Sacramento Valley, we now have an opportunity and a

need to manage our water supplies in a more integrated manner. We have, therefore, embarked upon an integrated water management program to meet local needs

in Northern California and thereby help provide solutions to problems in other regions of the state.

AN INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SACRAMENTO

VALLEY WILL IMPROVE WATER SUPPLY, QUALITY AND RELIABILITY

T–C contractors and other Northern California water users have committed to

help improve water supply reliability, water quality and environmental benefits.

Most notably, we have been involved in the development of an integrated water

management program for the Sacramento Valley. This program includes fish passage improvements, groundwater management activities, evaluation of the Sites

offstream reservoir, flood protection, water transfers and exchanges, watershed

management and other environmental improvements.

This plan is reflected in the development of the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement, which was finalized when the State Water Resources Control

Board postponed Phase 8 of the Bay–Delta water rights proceedings. This agreement is now the template for a regional strategy in the Sacramento Valley. The Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement will concentrate efforts on meeting

all of the water supply demands within the Sacramento Valley every year, and it

will help to provide water supplies for use in the Bay–Delta region for a number

of uses, including meeting water quality standards and providing export supplies to

areas south of the Bay–Delta, and as an asset for the Environmental Water Account

(EWA) and other environmental programs.

PROVIDING WATER SECURITY FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE VALLEY

Water security for water users in my area and throughout the Sacramento Valley

enables Northern California water users to enhance water security throughout the

state. As I mentioned earlier, water users on the T–C are only receiving 60 percent

of their water allocation from the CVP this year. Water users in the Sacramento

Valley can assist in more effectively utilizing the resource to provide water supplies

for needs in other parts of the state, but we first are committed to meet local water

demands in the Sacramento Valley.

To meet these needs, leadership and direction must be provided to support the

development of this regional integrated management program. For me and the

water users on the T–C, the following actions will begin to achieve this goal.

Infra–Regional Water Transfers

A critical component of any plan to meet all of the water needs in the Sacramento

Valley is the ability to transfer water within the region. The Central Valley Project

Improvement Act (CVPIA) contains a provision to facilitate and endorse these types

235

of infra-regional transfers in the Sacramento Valley for CVP project water. These

transfers allow water diverters in the Sacramento Valley to assist their neighbors

in meeting their individual water needs. For the past several years, the T–C has

benefited from certain water transfers, however, there is a need for the Bureau of

Reclamation, as a partner, to further exercise its discretion in a manner that will

expedite and make affordable such transfers from neighboring water suppliers.

These intraregional transfers promote partnerships among the local water users and

allow local needs to be met.

Conveyance of Water in Federal Facilities

Intra-regional water transfers to the T–C water users and other creative management tools will require conveyance of water through federal facilities. There is now

a tremendous opportunity to convey water, including transferred, exchanged and remanaged water, through federal facilities to help provide water security on the west

side of the Sacramento Valley. This can be done under the CVPIA or the federal

Warren Act. The key, however, is for the Bureau of Reclamation to utilize its discretion under these laws to expedite rather than hinder conveyance of this water in

an economically feasible manner to the landowners in the region.

Fish Passage Improvements

Water users on the west side of the Sacramento Valley are currently initiating

efforts to improve water delivery reliability while improving fish migration past the

Red Bluff diversion dam on the Sacramento River. This is a continuation of a historical commitment on the part of T–C to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed

species while meeting water delivery obligations. These efforts are reflective of

projects developed by water diverters throughout the Sacramento Valley, such as

fish screens, fish ladders, siphons, dam removal, habitat conservation plans, and

other habitat improvement projects to enhance the environment while ensuring

water supply reliability.

Sites Off–Stream Reservoir

The flexibility of the state’s water system would be greatly enhanced with the construction of Sites reservoir. I am very much interested in the development of this

project. As I mentioned earlier, my property is in the footprint of the proposed Sites

reservoir. My home ranch and much of my rangeland will be flooded by Sites reservoir once it is filled. Although I will be losing my home of twenty-seven years, I

only have to look to the east over the hills into the Sacramento Valley where all

of our irrigated farming, our livelihood, and that of my children and grandchildren

are so dependent upon securing water reliability. If we succeed in this integrated

endeavor, so shall the rest of California have the opportunity for more secure water

supplies.

This off-stream storage project would provide additional water availability for a

number of uses including improvements to habitat and water quality. This reservoir

would provide water supplies in average and dry years for urban, agricultural and

environmental purposes, increase Bay–Delta outflows during critical times, improve

flood control, enhance groundwater recharge, contribute to the EWA and improve

flexibility for existing projects.

In closing, developing solutions for California’s water needs requires the implementation of an integrated program of water management and supply activities that

includes the components I have mentioned today. The Sacramento Valley will be

able to provide substantial contributions to help provide water security throughout

the state. But, this can only occur when we empower regional solutions, like the integrated program described above, and local needs are satisfied by a combination

of facility management, regulatory streamlining and the sound use of discretion by

federal and state agencies. Such local solutions will far better utilize each region’s

water resources, and thereby make water available to resolve much of the State’s

growing water needs.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Dr. Gleick.

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER GLEICK, DIRECTOR OF THE

PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT,

ENVIRONMENT, AND SECURITY

Mr. GLEICK. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, thank you for the

opportunity to speak to you today.

236

I’m the Director of the Pacific Institute in Oakland. It’s a nonprofit research institute. We look at a wide range of things, most

of them related to water resources, and climate change.

I also serve as a member of the National Academy of Sciences

Water Science and Technology Board. I have been given a challenge today to talk about two completely different things in 5 minutes. I’ll do the best I can.

The first is something that you believe to be true that I think

is no longer true. The second is something that you probably think

is not true but turns out to be true.

The first one has to do with water use efficiency and the potential for improving water use efficiency. It used to be true in the

State of California and in many other places that building new reservoirs and dams and aqueducts was the best way to solve our

water problems in California. We did a wonderful job in that regard but that is no longer the case.

In fact, the good news is that far more water is available at far

less cost far more quickly by improving the way we use water by

improving the efficiency of water use statewide than could ever be

made available by new dams and reservoirs. I’ll come back to that

point in a moment.

The second issue is that climate change turns out to be a real

problem. Despite what many people have believed for a long time,

climate change is now acknowledged to be a real problem, something in our future if not already in our present, and that state and

Federal water agencies need to do a much better job of thinking

about what climate change means for water resources.

In particular, we must avoid funding unnecessary infrastructure

or, in particular, infrastructure that is designed for conditions that

may no longer exist or may not exist in the future. We must not

build things we don’t need and can’t afford.

Now, let me come back to the first point briefly. In my written

testimony there are a number of figures. If you could perhaps look

at the first one only. This is somewhat of a mundane example but

I think the importance of it will become clear.

This figure looks at how much water the State of California uses

to flush toilets. Now, it may sound somewhat mundane but, in fact,

toilets are the largest indoor user of water for all of us.

The top line shows how much water we would use to flush toilets

every year in California if there were no conservation and efficiency. The blue line in the middle shows how much water we use

today to flush toilets based on the current mix of inefficient and efficient toilets. And the bottom line is how much we would use to

flush toilets if all of the toilets in the State of California were efficient models.

Now, as you probably know, President Bush signed into law in

the early ’90’s the National Energy Policy Act which includes

standards for new efficient toilets. All the toilets you buy nationwide now are efficient toilets. But there are still plenty of inefficient toilets statewide and nationwide despite the great efforts that

have been made to replace inefficient toilets.

In fact, our estimate is that there are 500,000 acre-feet of water

used every year to flush toilets that are inefficient. A mundane example but a huge amount of water. You heard in the first part of

237

the testimony this morning that the yield from the expected new

supply projects proposed under CALFED is 250,000 to 500,000

acre-feet.

There is potential for improving water use efficiency in every sector of our economy, not just toilets. Toilets is just one example, but

these are huge savings in the agricultural area, in the industrial

area, and in many other aspects of our use in homes.

In terms of future need for storage, the state may need more

storage. I’m not disputing that, but I would argue that we don’t

need to fast track that new storage and if we do, we are risking

making the wrong decision early. I would urge you very carefully

to look at the agreements that CALFED has come to, the balance

of choices presented in the CALFED agreement, and not fast track

storage that we may not need and may not be able to afford.

Let me address the second point, climate change. This is a very

complicated issue but not as complicated as some might expect. Let

me offer a quick summary, given my limited time, based on the

conclusions of the recently completed National Assessment.

Again, President Bush in 1990 passed a law that required that

a ‘‘National Assessment’’ of the impacts of climate change be done.

Such a National Assessment has been done and was presented to

Congress and to the President in the last several months.

The results that I would like to talk about come from the National Assessment Water Report, which was funded by the Department of the Interior. All of your offices have received them.

Very briefly, the findings are as follows: Climate change is a real

problem. Some climate change now seems unavoidable no matter

what we do. The evidence is accumulating and convincing that the

climate is already changing. There are close and complex connections between California’s water system and our climate. Our water

is very dependent on the climate system.

There are likely to be serious negative impacts for the state’s

water resources. There may also be some positive ones depending

on the way the climate changes and the speed at which it changes.

There are many remaining uncertainties including the nature of

the changes and extreme events, changes in precipitation patterns,

details of regional effects.

There are things we should be doing right now. California water

planners have not adequately addressed this issue. For example,

the California water plan done by the Department of Water Resources has not addressed this issue and CALFED has not addressed this issue. It is, I believe, a requirement now from the Secretary of the Interior that all agencies and bureaus under the Secretary’s jurisdiction look at the issue of climate change.

In sum, there doesn’t have to be a water crisis in California.

There are a wide range of innovative and successful projects and

efforts that have been done and are underway that can reduce the

severity of California’s water resource problems.

The bad news is that there are new challenges coming. A crisis

in California’s water policy making. There are problems at the

state and Federal level in the way we think about water policy.

I urge you to make sure that legislation that you propose and

pass including, for example, H.R. 1985, ensure that the potential

for water use efficiency statewide receives its appropriate priority

238

1 654 13th Street, Preservation Park, Oakland, California 94612, 510 251–1600.

and attention, that taxpayer money is not spent on expensive and

unnecessary infrastructure before it’s needed, and that the risks of

climate change are addressed soon by the appropriate Federal and

state agencies. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleick follows:]

Statement of Peter H. Gleick, President, Pacific Institute for Studies in

Development, Environment, and Security 1

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

testify today. I am a scientist by training and direct the policy research activities

at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in

Oakland, California. The Pacific Institute is an independent, non-partisan research

center looking at a wide range of national and international water issues. I have

served on a wide range of boards and committees, including the Public Advisory

Forum of the American Water Works Association, the International Water Resources Association, scientific panels of the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. I am currently a member of the National Academy of Science’s Water Science and Technology Board. A

full resume is attached.

The Institute works extensively on California water policy issues and provides

analysis and policy recommendations to State, Federal, and local policymakers. The

Institute is a participant in the ongoing California Water Plan effort of the state

DWR. We were chosen by the U.S. Department of the Interior to do a formal independent review of CALFED’s water-use efficiency analysis. I served as co-chair and

lead author of the National Assessment Water Sector report looking at the implications of climate change for the nation’s water resources.

SUMMARY TESTIMONY

My testimony today addresses two critical points: first, the vast potential to improve the efficient use of water statewide; and second, the coming risks of climate

change. In summary, the good news is that far more water is available, at a far

lower cost, through efforts to cut the inefficient and wasteful use of water, than

could ever be made available by new reservoirs and dams. The bad news is that

climate change is a real problem and the State and Federal agencies looking at our

water problems need to do a better job of addressing it. In particular, members of

Congress have the responsibility to avoid funding expensive infrastructure that is

either unnecessary or designed for conditions we no longer expect to occur. We must

not build things we don’t need and can’t afford.

Let me start with the potential for improving our water use. One example should

really open your eyes. As you know, there is a national standard (the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, PL 102–486) that has required all toilets sold in the U.S.

for the past seven years to be ‘‘ULFTs——highly efficient, low-flow toilets. California

has made great progress in replacing old, inefficient toilets, and the new ones pay

for themselves within a year in water savings. Yet we estimate that at least twothirds of the old inefficient ones are still in place, wasting 2 to 4 gallons every time

we flush them. What does this mean? As Figure 1 shows, it means that there are

500,000 acre-feet of clean, cheap water wasted every year just from our inefficient

toilets. It means that California residents are flushing more than $250 million dollars every year down the drain. This is more water than could be produced as reliable yield from any of the new proposed reservoirs. And it is the cheapest water

available.

239

This is just one example: improvements in water-use efficiency are possible in

every single sector of our economy, from our industrial, commercial, and agricultural

sectors. We estimate that no new water supplies are necessary for at least two decades, even with expected increases in population and economic growth, beyond

projects that are designed to store and use groundwater, increase our use of reclaimed water, and improve efficient use.

Let me address the second point: global climate change. This is a complicated

issue, but not as complicated as some think. Let me offer you a summary, using

the conclusions of the recently completed National Assessment Water Sector report.

This report, part of the overall National Assessment requested by President George

Bush and the Congress in the 1990 Global Change Research Act (Public Law 101–

606), was released several months ago. I served as co-chair and lead author of the

Water Sector report, which was funded by the Department of the Interior and the

U.S. Geological Survey. The scientific community and the public extensively reviewed the report. (The full report is available for this committee, and members of

the public can find it at www.pacinst.org/naw.html).

Let me summarize some of its major findings:

• Climate change is a real problem

• Some climate change now appears unavoidable.

• The evidence is accumulating and convincing that the climate is already changing.

• There are close and complex connections between California’s water system and

our climate.

• California’s water resources and some of the infrastructure already in place are

especially vulnerable to climate changes.

• There are likely to be serious negative impacts for the state’s water resources;

there are also likely to be positive impacts and some reductions in the severity

of negative ones we already experience. There are also many remaining uncertainties, including the nature of changes in extreme events, precipitation patterns, and the details of regional effects.

There are things we should be doing right now. California water planners have

not adequately addressed this issue, at the federal, state, or local levels. In particular, the California Water Plan has not addressed this issue adequately, nor has

CALFED. I note that a new order from the Secretary of the Interior, Order No.

3226, now requires that every bureau and office of the Department of the Interior

consider and analyze potential climate change impacts in long-range planning, developing water plans, and when making major decisions about resources under the

Department’s purview. This order applies to all CALFED activities, and to much

more.

BACKGROUND TO TESTIMONY

1. Water Use Efficiency: What is the Good News?

Out of the limelight, every single economic sector in California is working to resolve water problems and having some success. Water use is becoming more efficient

in every sector. Smart collaborations are finding ways of restoring natural ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:40 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 73149.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
240

systems while maintaining California’s excellent agricultural productivity and protecting landowners. California farmers are continuing to innovate and modernize,

using less water while producing more food, fiber, and profit. Urban water-use efficiency improvements are keeping ahead of population growth. In other words, even

as populations grow, the amount of water each person needs is dropping, and in

some cases, even total water use is dropping. The potential for even more improvements in efficiency is enormous.

This kind of good news means that the number of successful tools that we have

for solving California’s water problems is growing. Let me offer some specific examples:

Urban Highlights

Cities are becoming much more water efficient, breaking the link between population growth and growing water use.

• Water use in Santa Clara County peaked in 1985, and is lower today than it

was 15 years ago.

• San Diego County is using less water—13 percent less—than it was using ten

years ago, even though its population has grown 10 percent.

• Water demands for the Metropolitan Water District peaked in 1989 and 1990.

They are using less water now then they were 10 years ago.

• Los Angeles used 593,000 acre-feet of water in 1970. Demand rose in the late

1980s and then began to drop back. In 1998 they used 594,000 acre-feet. Figure

2 shows this history. Population during this same period rose from 2.8 million

to 3.75 million people—a 32 percent increase.

Water recycling is reducing wastewater volumes and providing water supply, reliability, and environmental benefits.

Statewide, industrial, commercial, and institutional water use efficiency is rising

dramatically. Between 1980 and 1990, industrial water use in California dropped 30

percent, while the State’s economic production rose 30 percent. This trend has continued in recent years.

Contrary to some beliefs that no ‘‘new storage’’ for water is being built in the

State, substantial increases in ‘‘storage’’ in the form of massive groundwater banks

have been created. Just two examples:

• In the past 20 years at one facility alone near Bakersfield, nearly 1 million acrefeet of water have been stored.

• The Semitropic Water District groundwater-banking program has stored 500,000

acre-feet of water in the past decade.

241

Agricultural Highlights

For decades, with no official policy or recognition, California growers have been

moving toward higher-valued crops that use less water per acre and per dollar

earned. Figure 3 shows the drop in field and grain crops and increases in vegetable

and fruit crops.

Growers are also moving toward more efficient irrigation technologies, saving

money, water, and energy, and increasing yields. Yet, much more potential exists,

as Figure 4 shows.

Smart collaborations between local landowners and urban agencies are providing

high-quality, reliable recycled water for agricultural irrigation.

242

The technological and communications revolution sweeping the country and the

world is also having an effect in agriculture. Farmers are learning how to get the

information they need to improve productivity, reduce water use, and increase profits.

Some Bad News?

Great efforts have been expended to improve California’s formal water planning

process—both at the state Department of Water Resources and in the CalFed process. The result has been an imperfect, but improved effort to balance competing

needs and desires. That balance is threatened by imbalanced legislation at the federal level—legislation that favors political preferences over economic rationality, and

large infrastructure over more effective and cheaper efficiency improvements.

Recommendations

Existing technologies for improving water-use efficiency, improving water supply

reliability, and cleaning wastewater have enormous untapped potential. The potential for improving the efficiency of water use is greatly underestimated by official

agencies.

• Regulatory incentives and motivation can be effective tools. Smart regulation is

better than no regulation.

• Economic innovation leads to cost-effective changes. The power of proper pricing

of water is underestimated.

• Ignorance is not bliss: the more water users know about their own use and the

options and alternatives available to them, the better decisions they make.

• The most successful water projects have individuals and groups with different

agendas working together.

2. Nature of Climate Impacts for California Water

• There will be very important effects on water availability.

* Significant changes in the timing of runoff from the Sierra Nevada;

* Less snow, more rain, more late winter and early spring runoff;

* Less late spring and early summer runoff;

* Less summer soil moisture (more need for irrigation water)

• Everyone seems to worry about droughts, but the risks of flooding may be as

great or greater. Worse, we may see increases in the risks of both.

• Water quality will also be affected: salt water may penetrate farther into the

Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to where the pumps for our water supplies take

freshwater for Bay Area and Southern California.

• The Colorado River will also be directly affected.

• There is an increased risk of contamination of coastal groundwater due to rising

sea level.

Some Climate Change is Unavoidable.

Some climate change is unavoidable. There is nothing we can do (or more accurately, nothing we will do) to prevent at least some change from occurring. Indeed,

the National Assessment water sector report presents evidence that change is already occurring (Figure 5).

What Should We Do?

• Research on climate change must not only continue, it must accelerate, just as

greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating. (This is a federal and international

responsibility.)

243

• Research on climate impacts must greatly expand. What we don’t know seriously swamps what we do know. (This is a federal and state responsibility.)

• The risks of climate change must be incorporated into all water planning, including the design and operation of federal and state water facilities, CalFed,

and the California Water Plan.

• We must begin now, and should have begun a decade ago, to evaluate policies

for adapting to and mitigating the worst threats. (This is a federal, state, local,

agency, and individual responsibility.)

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there doesn’t have to be a water crisis in

California. There is a wide range of innovative and successful projects and activities

already underway showing how to address California’s diverse water problems. The

bad news is that there are new challenges coming, and a crisis in California water

policymaking—real problems at the state and federal levels in the way we think

about water policy. I urge you to make sure that the legislation you propose and

pass, including HR 1985, ensures that the potential for improving water-use efficiency receives its appropriate priority, that taxpayer money is not spent on expensive and unnecessary infrastructure, and that the risks of climate change be addressed soon by the appropriate federal and state agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. You get these high-tech folks here in

Silicon Valley to invent a low-flow toilet that works.

Mr. GLEICK. They do work, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to

address that issue.

Mr. CALVERT. A better one.

Mr. Nelson.

STATEMENT OF BARRY NELSON, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman

Lofgren. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. My

244

name is Barry Nelson with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

We have been working on California water issues for nearly 20

years.

Congressman, the good news from the perspective of the topic

you are hearing today is that CALFED has been working on these

issues in a very cooperative manner since 1995. That CALFED

plan has been adopted by state and Federal agencies and is supported by a very broad range of stakeholders throughout the State

of California.

We look forward to working with you in drafting legislation to

implement that program. Unfortunately, we can’t support either

H.R. 1985 or S. 976 at the moment and you have received a letter

to that effect from approximately 25 organizations, most of the environmental and fishing organizations that have worked in the

CALFED process.

On the other hand, we do believe that Congressman Miller’s

newly introduced legislation would support balanced CALFED implementation. I would like to briefly discuss some of our concerns

and focus as well on our recommendations for moving forward.

In short to begin, we fear very much that the CALFED Program

may be beginning to unravel and the early warning sign there is

the diminished level of state funding and Federal funding that we

have been seeing. We are very concerned that if this trend continues, it could lead to gridlock and damage not just the environment but also water supply throughout the state. We are strongly

supportive of a balanced state and Federal program to fund the

CALFED program and we would like to move forward with that as

rapidly as possible.

I would, however, like to mention a couple of concerns about

H.R. 1985 and I’ll start with its potential impacts on water supply

reliability. The first of those concerns is that by establishing essentially seniority for a very small group of farmers in the Central

Valley, there is the potential to undermine state water rights and

also to affect the water supplies of Silicon Valley here in the South

Bay, of the East Bay, of water users in a variety of parts of the

state. We are very concerned about that.

Second, we are concerned about the potential of the bill to undermine the ecosystem restoration program coming out of CALFED,

Trinity River restoration, wetlands water supplies, wildlife refuge

supplies, protection of the Bay-Delta endangered species.

We are also concerned about the premature authorization of facilities. Sunne McPeak mentioned that we need facilities to move

forward. We completely agree that we are going to need smart, intelligently designed facilities. We don’t believe we can get there if

we short circuit the analysis of those facilities.

Some of the facilities that H.R. 1985 would authorize are so premature that they literally don’t have a spot on the map. A site

hasn’t been selected. A name for these facilities has not been selected in the San Joaquin Basin. I’ll get to another one of those facilities in a moment.

If this bill were enacted, we are very concerned as well that it

would change the record of decision as it would affect Federal agencies. It would not change that record of decision as it affects state

agencies. We are very concerned that would undermine that state

245

and Federal partnership that has been essential for this program

and for the successes it has seen so far.

Our recommendations. We have worked very hard to present recommendations to the CALFED Program. Not just NRDC but the

environmental community at large. We have presented your office

with a briefing book on these issues and a detailed blueprint for

meeting California’s water supply needs.

In our testimony we mention five principles. I’ll mention four

rapidly and then spend a moment on the fifth. The first is in order

to move forward with the program to meet California’s water supply needs, we need to make sure we are moving forward with the

program that is compatible with the Record of Decision so we don’t

set aside five, 6 years really, of hard work.

The second is that we make sure we are not just compatible with

the decision but that we are implementing that decision in a balanced fashion delivering the full range of benefits, not just ecosystem, not just water supply, water quality, levee stability, and so

forth.

The third is making sure that we have a program compatible

with ecosystem restoration. The fourth is making sure we are doing

analysis before we make decisions.

The fifth is economic analysis. We are concerned that we haven’t

focused enough on economic analysis in making decisions in the

CALFED Program. They have done some credible analysis. NRDC

recently completed an analysis that showed, for example, Sites reservoir, one of the facilities that CALFED recommends be studied

but not yet authorized.

That facility, according to our analysis, would cost approximately $400 an acre foot to deliver water to the agricultural community.

Dramatically more to the urban community. More to the urban

community, we believe, than any urban water agency would be

likely to pay. And in the agricultural community that amount of

money is simply beyond the capability of the ag community.

Some of the folks who have advocated the construction of Sites

reservoir have been found by the Bureau of Reclamation to be unable to pay more than $12 an acre foot for their water supply.

Frankly, we don’t think it’s likely that the state or Federal Governments are going to construct a reservoir that would cost $400 to

deliver water to folks who can afford to pay $12 for their water

supply.

The principles that NRDC has recommended aren’t abstract. We

don’t believe it means we should not act. We think we should move

forward rapidly. That’s why we supported things like the Bay-Delta

Accord, the water bond passed last year, Prop 204, state and Federal funding for the CALFED Program.

In light of the time, I’m not going to mention all the different

tools that we believe can and should be implemented to strengthen

water supply reliability and in the long run protect water quality

and the health of the ecosystem. The good news again is from the

perspective of CALFED’s own economic analysis.

The more benign water policy, water supply tools or also, as Dr.

Gleick mentioned, the less expensive tools. They are the ones that

are less controversial, less expensive, more environmentally benign

and, frankly, clearly more likely to happen in the short-term.

246

Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lofgren, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. We look forward, as I said, to putting

together a broadly supported piece of legislation to implement the

CALFED Program. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

Statement of Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resources

Defense Council

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

to speak with you today regarding California water supply reliability and related

issues. My name is Barry Nelson and I am a Senior Policy Analyst with the Natural

Resources Defense Council’s Western Water Project. I have been involved in

California water policy issues for over a decade and have been involved in the

CALFED Bay–Delta Program since its inception. NRDC has over 500,000 members,

nearly 100,000 of whom live in California.

NRDC works actively to restore the health of the Bay–Delta ecosystem, to improve California drinking water quality and to improve water supply reliability. We

believe, for two reasons, that it is essential that Californians act to improve water

supply reliability. The first is that unwise water supply activities can undermine

ecosystem restoration efforts. The best way to avoid these conflicts is to invest in

intelligent water supply activities that are compatible with a healthy ecosystem.

The second reason comes from our understanding that providing tangible water supply reliability benefits is essential to broadening support for ambitious ecosystem

restoration efforts. In short, we recognize the need to move forward with a balanced

program that will benefit the environment and the California economy. The genius

of the CALFED Bay–Delta Program is in its recognition that improved water supply

reliability, improved water quality and restored ecosystem health are all compatible

and must be pursued through a coordinated, interdisciplinary strategy.

The good news, with respect to the topic of your hearing today, is that the

CALFED program has been investigating these issues since 1995. Its plan was

adopted last year. This plan has been endorsed by state and federal agencies and

a broad, bi-partisan range of stakeholders. We support the CALFED program. But

the CALFED plan is not simply a list of projects. It is a carefully constructed strategy to assure broad benefits and to allow phased decision-making to take place on

controversial issues as adequate information becomes available.

NRDC believes that federal funding for balanced implementation of the CALFED

plan is an important key to improving water supply reliability. We look forward to

working with you in drafting legislation that will promote this goal. Unfortunately,

neither H.R. 1985 or S. 976 is such a balanced bill. I will return to our concerns

in a moment, and to other obstacles to progress, but first, I would like to discuss

the principles that, we believe, provide the keys to a balanced approach to improving water supply reliability in the coming several years.

Keys to Improving Water Supply Reliability

NRDC and the California environmental community have worked carefully to develop recommendations for the improvement of water supply reliability in

California. We have separately provided you with the environmental community’s

briefing book and blueprint for improved water supply reliability. I have copies with

me today. This work leads us to suggest five principles for moving forward with an

effective program.

Compatibility with the CALFED Record of Decision: The CALFED process has required leadership, six years and enormous resources from Congress, the state legislature, state and federal agencies and stakeholders. The plan, adopted last August,

lays out a road map for moving forward in a balanced manner. Any effort designed

to provide water supply reliability benefits for Californians must be compatible with

this plan. If efforts that would undermine the CALFED program gain strong support, they will bring down this broad-based effort and weaken other collaborative

efforts to meet water supply, water quality and ecosystem restoration needs.

Balanced Implementation of the CALFED Program: Compatibility with CALFED

is the first step. The second step is assuring that state and federal agencies are

moving forward with a balanced program designed to provide the full range of benefits promised by the CALFED plan. Without such balanced implementation, support

for the CALFED program would inevitably erode.

Credible Economic Analysis and ‘‘Beneficiary Pays’’ Financing: For far too long,

water supply planning efforts have excluded credible economic analysis and focused

on forcing taxpayers to subsidize water development. We believe that we must turn

247

towards realistic water prices designed to pay for needed improvements and provide

incentives to use water efficiently. The failure to incorporate credible economics and

financing has led some water users to conclude, erroneously, that a new wave of

dam building is required to meet future water needs. Water users cannot pay for

such improvements. State and federal budget realities make massive taxpayer subsidies for these projects unlikely. Credible economics and financing are essential to

developing realistic projects that will deliver real benefits. The CALFED program

has initiated some credible economic analysis, with results I will discuss later. The

CALFED plan also requires beneficiaries to pay for proposed new surface storage

facilities. These are, we believe, significant steps forward.

Compatibility with Ecosystem Restoration: A healthy ecosystem improves water

supply reliability. If the Bay–Delta were allowed to continue to degrade, it would

inevitably lead to more listings under the state and federal endangered species acts,

additional litigation, additional operational restrictions, increased conflict and reduced water supply reliability. In addition, proposals for future development that

would further damage the ecosystem are inevitably met with opposition, delays and

escalating costs. Fortunately, in the CALFED plan, in propositions 12, 13 and 204,

and in previous federal funding for CALFED, agencies, legislators and stakeholders

have accepted this principle.

Analysis Before Decision–Making: As I mentioned above, the CALFED plan is not

simply a list of projects. The program did a tremendous amount of analysis to develop its recommended actions. However, in some areas, CALFED recognized that

additional analysis was required before making final decisions, particularly regarding controversial, expensive, potentially damaging and questionably viable projects

such as new surface storage and proposed new Delta facilities. The CALFED plan

lays out an ambitious program of evaluation in these areas, to provide a solid basis

for decision-making. In short, to develop workable water supply solutions, we need

to make sure that adequate analysis precedes decision-making.

These principles are not abstract, nor are they reasons to delay action. For example, these principles led NRDC to strongly support the water bond last year in

California. This bond was consistent with these principles. As a result, it attracted

board support, provided broad benefits and was approved by nearly a two-thirds

vote of the public. We believe that a similar approach could be successful in crafting

federal legislation.

Recent Obstacles to Progress

During recent months, several significant obstacles have emerged, which are hindering progress towards programs to provide improvements in water supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem health. Many of these obstacles indicate that

the CALFED ‘‘deal’’ may be unraveling. If this trend continues, it will lead to gridlock, to the detriment of water users and the environment. In short, it would throw

out six years of planning, squander broad support for the CALFED plan and make

it difficult for a similar broad-based planning process to emerge for years to come.

Imbalanced State Funding: NRDC has supported full funding for CALFED at the

state level, even for the portions of the CALFED plan with which we have serious

concerns. However, it appears unlikely that state legislators will fully fund

CALFED. It appears that storage investigations are likely to receive full funding

and that disproportionally large cuts will be focused on the CALFED water user efficiency and water quality programs. The result is that water supply reliability efforts

will be undermined. In addition, some water users also succeeded in deleting from

the budget language that reflected the CALFED plan beneficiary pays requirement

and the requirement that the state create new user fees to support ecosystem restoration. We hope that these problems will be remedied before the budget is finalized. To date, however, pressure from water users is responsible for distorting the

state budget to undermine the CALFED program.

Inadequate Federal Appropriations: The CALFED plan will be nearly meaningless

if it is not funded. Last year, Congress provided no funds for CALFED. This year,

the federal appropriations process again raises serious cause for concern. The Administration is seeking only $20 million in funding for CALFED, down from $60

million in the Administration’s budget request last year. The situation in the House

is even more dire. The House Energy and Water Appropriations bill includes no

funds for CALFED ecosystem restoration, water quality or water use efficiency activities. However, the House bill does include funding for studies for Sites Reservoir.

Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that we will see balanced federal funding for

water supply reliability or ecosystem restoration activities. With some Californians

seeking to undermine the CALFED plan, the likelihood of substantial federal funding in the near future for CALFED’s water supply reliability efforts is very low.

248

Unfortunately, the state and federal appropriations processes appear to be establishing surface storage—the most expensive, controversial, environmentally damaging and speculative projects—as the highest priority for funding.

Sites Reservoir: Because CALFED developed remarkably little information regarding the proposed Sites reservoir, CALFED indicated that additional analysis is required. CALFED did not, for example, determine who might receive benefits from

the reservoir, if it were built. However, the CALFED plan does require new facilities

to be paid for by beneficiaries, not the taxpayers. Since the adoption of that plan,

several developments threaten to undermine the CALFED strategy regarding this

facility. A memorandum of understanding signed by the Bureau of Reclamation appears to promise benefits from Sites to specific water users. This document ignores

the beneficiary pays requirement and calls for taxpayer funding for the project. As

I mentioned above, water users have also succeeded in stripping language from the

state budget that simply repeated the CALFED requirement that beneficiaries pay

for these projects.

CALFED did not complete an analysis regarding the likely cost of water from a

Sites Reservoir to agricultural water users. However, NRDC, using CALFED’s methodology and data, has completed such an analysis. A summary is attached. We discovered that, even before considering the needs of the environment, water from

Sites would cost over $400 per acre-foot to North of Delta users and $470 to South

of Delta agriculture. The cost for urban water users would be much higher, far more

than any urban agency would be likely to pay. The strongest supporters of Sites are

Sacramento Valley water users, such as the Tehama–Colusa Canal Authority. Some

water users in the Tehama–Colusa Canal Authority currently pay just over $11 per

acre-foot. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation has found that these water users are

incapable of paying more. As a result, they are not paying the Bureau what they

already owe taxpayers for capital repayment, operations and maintenance costs and

restoration fund charges. In summary, the strongest supporters for Sites Reservoir,

a project that would produce water costing $400 per acre-foot, have been officially

found by the Bureau of Reclamation to be incapable of paying more than $12.00 per

acre-foot. We found that operating the project to provide water for South of Delta

CVP customers would require an annual subsidy of nearly 100 million dollars. State

and federal agencies are well aware of these problems with Sites Reservoir, which

is why CALFED proposed going no farther than preparing additional studies.

H.R. 1985 and S. 976: Unfortunately, these two pieces of federal legislation both

violate all of the principles I outlined above. Neither is compatible with the

CALFED plan. Neither would effectively promote improved water supply reliability.

I have attached a short summary of our concerns regarding H.R. 1985. We have also

provided your office with a much more detailed analysis of the many ways in which

this bill conflicts with the CALFED program. I would like to mention just a few of

the obstacles to improving water supply reliability that this bill would create.

1. Undermining State Water Rights. The bill would give federal agricultural water

contractors South of the Delta first claim on any water controlled by federal agencies, in order to guarantee a specified level of delivery. This provision would turn

California water rights on its head—essentially turning junior contractors, such as

the Westlands Water District, into senior water rights holders. This provision could

be used by West side water users to undermine the reliability of water supplies for

Silicon Valley, for the East Bay and for other parts of the state. The near certainty

of this threat is demonstrated by the Westlands Water District’s attack on water

supplies for farmers on the East side of the San Joaquin Valley.

2. Undermining Ecosystem Restoration. The Westlands Water District has sought

for years to weaken legally required environmental protections for the Bay and

Delta, endangered fish species, wildlife refuges and the Trinity River. These interests have already sued to block restoration actions on several fronts. In 1995, they

sought to repeal much of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The proposed

delivery guarantees would provide them with another tool in this effort. If passed,

this language would be immediately cited in Westlands’ existing legal attacks on environmental protection. The bill would also redefine the CALFED ecosystem restoration program and create numerous new obstacles to federal and even state participation in ecosystem restoration efforts. The lack of clarity in these provisions would

be certain to lead to decades of litigation.

3. Prematurely Authorizing Water Development Facilities. The CALFED plan

clearly calls for careful analysis of proposed new surface storage facilities prior to

seeking congressional authorization. H.R. 1985, on the other hand, would authorize

these facilities, following the submission of a report to Congress. The bill would

allow authorization to be withdrawn if a report is rejected by two congressional committees within 60 days; however, this timeline makes such congressional action extremely unlikely. This approach would violate the CALFED plan and long-standing

249

congressional precedent. The bill would also pre-authorize Sites Reservoir and unnamed facilities in the San Joaquin Basin that CALFED concluded were so premature and problematic that the program did not even project possible dates for a

recommendation to Congress. As I discussed previously, economic analysis by

CALFED and NRDC suggest that, even without considering environmental needs,

none of these projects is viable as a water supply facility. And finally, the bill would

allow the Secretary of Interior, in cooperation with a CALFED governance body that

does not yet exist, to trigger authorization for virtually any facility in the Central

Valley, including some, such as the Peripheral Canal and Auburn Dam, that

CALFED has explicitly rejected.

4. Undermining the Environmental Water Account. The bill would also redefine

the Environmental Water Account (EWA) in a way that could harm South of Delta

water users. The EWA is designed to help restore the Bay–Delta and protect endangered species without affecting the water supplies of South of Delta water users. If

the EWA is redefined, as proposed in H.R. 1985, it would render the EWA inadequate to achieve this goal. As a result, South of Delta water users, including the

Santa Clara Valley and Southern California, would almost certainly see increased

disruptions in water deliveries.

In each of the above ways and more, H.R. 1985 would undermine the CALFED

plan. We have similar concerns regarding S. 976’s treatment of storage facilities and

CVP deliver assurances.

The CALFED plan is binding on both state and federal agencies. H.R. 1985 would

fundamentally alter the plan in a number of respects. These changes would bind

federal agencies. However, California agencies would continue to be bound by the

existing plan. If the bill were to be enacted, state and federal agencies would be

working to implement different and conflicting programs. At its heart, CALFED is

a cooperative arrangement between state and federal agencies. By legislatively altering the CALFED plan and commitments made by federal agencies, the bill would

undermine this partnership.

Westlands’ Attack on the San Joaquin River has Blocked Transfers. As I mentioned above, the Westlands Water District has attacked farmers on the East side

of the Central Valley in an attempt to take one third of the flow of the San Joaquin

River. Many of the farmers on the East side have a long history of selling water

to help Westlands growers meet their needs. Indeed, the emergence of a vital water

market among South of Delta water users is a striking success story. We have

strongly supported these transfers, which help meet agricultural water needs and

provide incentives for growers to use water efficiently. However, it is not surprising

that these East side farmers are now unwilling to sell water to Westlands. As a result, this year, the San Joaquin River petition is probably costing Westlands Water

District growers hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water.

Bureau of Reclamation’s Failure to Reform Expiring CVP Contracts: One of the

primary causes of concerns regarding water supply reliability is the Bureau of Reclamation’s practice of developing water without regard to efficient use or environmental impact. Thus, massive exports from the Delta were promised to water users,

regardless of their willingness to pay the cost of that water and regardless of impacts on California’s wildlife, fisheries and water quality. Today, laws passed because of strong public support for environmental protection have properly, if belatedly, imposed some outer limits on how much destruction can be caused by water

projects. As a result of these modest movements towards balance, exporters who

came to rely on free or virtually free water from the Delta, now complain of reliability problems.

Unfortunately, the Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to worsen these problems.

Instead of charging the true value of water to its customers, it is offering new 25

and 50 year contracts for water at a fraction of its true cost. Instead of reducing

quantities to the amount that is actually available, the Bureau is rolling over unrealistic quantities from the 1940s and 1950s. Instead of requiring efficiency and reasonable use of water, the Bureau is proposing to provide water to water rights holders and other prior rights holders at virtually no cost and with no conservation requirements.

Fundamentally, the Bureau of Reclamation’s position regarding the renewal of expiring Central Valley Project contracts is decreasing water supply reliability by

promising more water than it knows it can deliver, by charging prices that encourage water wasting and by failing to require conservation efforts.

Recommendations

So how should we move forward to improve water supply reliability? NRDC recommends that any water supply program be consistent with the principles presented above. We support federal funding and believe that there is an important

250

role for federal agencies to play in implementing a wide range of tools with dramatic

potential water supply reliability benefits. These tools include: • Agricultural water conservation

• Urban water conservation

• Voluntary water transfers

• Conjunctive use

• Cleaning up contaminated groundwater basins

• Dry-year land fallowing

• Permanent retirement of drainage-impaired agricultural land

• Urban water recycling

• Desalination

CALFED’s own economic analysis reveals that these approaches are all less expensive than destructive new surface storage projects. They are also far less controversial, potentially less environmentally damaging and far more likely to produce

benefits in the short run. This is why the CALFED plan sets the stage for an ambitious, multi-disciplinary strategy, including these tools, to help California meet its

current water needs. These recommendations are discussed at length in the environmental community’s Blueprint for an Environmentally and Economically Sound

CALFED Water Supply Reliability Program. We have provided your office with a

copy of this document.

We firmly believe that it is possible to develop broadly-supported federal legislation that will improve water supply reliability, as well as ecosystem health and

water quality. Neither H.R. 1985 nor S.976 will achieve this goal. We believe that

new language being prepared by Congressman Miller and Senator Boxer may come

closer to this goal of balanced implementation. Unfortunately, some water users appear to see this moment as an opportunity to rewrite the CALFED deal and to advantage themselves at the expense of the environment, urban and other agricultural

water users. We believe that this effort will be unsuccessful. The result, we fear,

could be gridlock in Washington and in Sacramento, reduced funding levels, decreasing confidence that cooperative ventures such as CALFED can produce results,

decreased state and federal leadership, missed opportunities, litigation and, most

importantly, declining water supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem health.

In a time of constrained state and federal budgets, it is essential that public investment in water issues be designed for maximum benefit. The stakes are too high

to squander resources on ineffective, unwise projects. The CALFED plan is far from

perfect. However, our choice today is a simple one, join together to implement this

program in a balanced manner or throw away six years of work, return to the water

wars and gridlock of a decade ago, wait for a drought, and pray.

We appreciate this opportunity to speak with you. NRDC looks forward to working with you to craft legislation that will meet the needs of California’s environment

and economy.

Attachments:

• Summary of concerns regarding H.R. 1985

• Summary of NRDC’s economic analysis of proposed surface storage facilities and

financing

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS REGARDING THE WESTERN WATER

ENHANCEMENT SECURITY ACT

JUNE 18, 2001

Congressman Ken Calvert has introduced legislation regarding California water

issues. NRDC supports federal legislation to help restore the San Francisco Bay–

Delta environment, to improve water quality and improve California’s water supply

reliability. However, NRDC opposes this bill due to the following concerns. As currently written, the legislation would:

Authorize Environmentally and Economically Unjustified Surface Storage

Projects: The bill would authorize new and expanded dams that could further damage an already overtapped San Francisco Bay–Delta ecosystem, endangered species

such as the winter run Chinook salmon and valuable commercial and recreational

fisheries. The total amount of storage contemplated by the bill is roughly equal to

the capacity of Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir.

Provide Unprecedented Authority to the Department of the Interior to Construct

New and Expanded Dams: The bill would provide the Department of Interior with

unprecedented authority to authorize projects in California’s vast Central Valley.

Projects would be authorized if Congressional committees fail to reject, within 60

days, a report on proposed projects from the Department of Interior. These projects

251

would not receive any review from the full House or Senate. The bill would also give

the Secretary authority to authorize projects that CALFED has rejected, such as the

Peripheral Canal and Auburn Dam.

Mandate Agribusiness Water Delivery Levels at the Expense of Critical Needs:

The bill would make the delivery of subsidized water for a small group of Central

Valley agricultural contractors the highest federal priority in California. Such guarantees are unprecedented and dangerous. This language would override other

CALFED programs and create many problems, potentially including:

• Undermining State Law and Other Water Users: The bill would appear to create

a legal entitlement which Westlands could use in existing and likely future litigation to attack other water users (EBMUD, Friant, Sac Valley, etc.).

• Undermining Environmental Protections: Perhaps the most likely short-term

outcome of this provision would be to force DOI to try to roll back environmental protections under the Clean Water Act, the ESA or the CVPIA.

• Prohibiting Purchases: The bill could prevent the Environmental Water Account

from purchasing water, which has provided approximately half of the water for

the EWA.

• Require development of new supplies: The bill would essentially give CVP contractors ‘‘first call’’ on all storage and on all water supply reliability funding

through CALFED until they had achieved clear reliability at this mandated

level.

The bill would turn the CALFED program into a permanent mitigation fund for

water users: The bill would require the CALFED ecosystem restoration program to

offset all impacts from Endangered Species Act protections on all water rights holders in most of California. This provision could also be read to require CALFED to

pay all ESA-related water costs from future water development in the entire Bay–

Delta solution area, forever.

The bill interferes with ecosystem restoration: The bill would prohibit federal OR

State land purchases for ecosystem restoration until a management plan is adopted.

The bill could prohibit all state and federal CALFED ecosystem land acquisition to

be halted permanently if, for any reason, this plan not be adopted by January 1,

2003. The bill also creates a new undefined mitigation responsibility for ‘‘cumulative

impact on the local government and communities’’ from all CALFED land acquisitions. Finally, the bill requires the CALFED ecosystem program to meet ‘‘coequal

objectives of achieving local economic and social goals and to implement the ecosystem restoration goals in the record of decision.’’ (section 102(g). These provisions

are poorly defined and would create new obstacles and legal liabilities for the ecosystem restoration program.

Abandon the CALFED Process. The joint state-federal CALFED Bay–Delta Program has prepared an ambitious, if imperfect, plan regarding water supply, water

quality and aquatic ecosystem restoration. However, the bill would abandon the

CALFED plan and return California to the old approach of asking taxpayers to pay

for destructive water projects to deliver subsidized water to agricultural users. The

bill would overturn or ignore CALFED requirements regarding:

• ‘‘Beneficiary Pays : The CALFED plan requires new surface storage to be paid

for by users, not taxpayers.

• Ecosystem Funding: The CALFED plan requires $150 million per year in ecosystem restoration funding (from state, federal and local sources.) The bill would

steer scarce federal resources into new surface storage projects.

• Water User Fees: The CALFED plan requires $35 million per year in new water

user fees to help pay for the CALFED program. User fees are not discussed in

the bill.

• Analysis Before Decisions: The CALFED plan includes timelines for evaluating

new storage facilities before Congress would vote to authorize individual

projects. The bill would authorize projects without analyzing costs, benefits, financing and environmental impacts.

• Management of Any New Facilities. The CALFED plan includes requirements

for the operation of any new storage facilities (such as providing flows for fish

restoration), to assure balanced projects. The bill abandons this approach in

favor of a legislative guarantee of water deliveries for a small segment of the

agricultural community, at the expense of other water users and the environment.

• Implementing Current Law: The CALFED plan includes decisions regarding the

implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act, signed in 1992 by President Bush. Implementation of these

laws could be required to be revisited if they interfered with the water delivery

mandate.

252

• Balance: The CALFED plan includes interconnected programs designed to assure progress on water supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem restoration. The bill would abandon this approach and fail to serve the California environment or its economy.

The Path to Success: California’s recent experience with passing $4 billion in

parks and water bonds suggests a workable Congressional strategy. In 1998, the

California legislature considered and rejected a water bond that featured expensive

and controversial dam projects. At the end of 1999, the legislature refused to make

this mistake again. It stripped out controversial provisions and passed a water bond

with broad support. The resulting bonds were passed by a 2/3 vote of the public,

with strong urban, agricultural and environmental support. A similar congressional

strategy would lead to a bill with real environmental, water supply and water quality benefits.

SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES’ ANALYSIS OF

PROPOSED NEW SURFACE STORAGE FACILITIES AND FINANCING

MARCH 30, 2001

This analysis investigated the cost of proposed new surface storage facilities under

evaluation by the CALFED Bay–Delta program and their cost-effectiveness for providing water supply for Central Valley agriculture. To assure its credibility, this

analysis was prepared in consultation with CALFED staff. The analysis has produced several important results.

CALFED Overestimated Potential Yield from New Surface Storage: This analysis

revealed that CALFED’s analysis significantly overstated the potential water supply

from new and expanded dams. Specifically, the CALFED analysis failed to consider

the impact of groundwater, land retirement and other programs on the demand for

and yield of water from these projects. Given ongoing efforts to improve groundwater management and calls from the Westlands Water District to retire 200,000

acres of farmland from that district, these impacts are certain to be significant. This

new analysis suggests that, CALFED overestimated potential yields as indicated

below.

Even These Revised Yield Estimates are Unrealistically High: The revised estimates in this analysis are likely to be optimistic regarding potential yield from these

facilities, because neither CALFED nor this analysis have yet incorporated the

needs of the environment. Protecting the Sacramento River, the Bay–Delta and natural resources such as the endangered winter run Chinook salmon would require

restrictions such as limiting the filling of any new storage. Further analysis will certainly show that, unless these facilities ignore the needs of the environment and the

requirements of the Endangered Species Act, actual water yields would be significantly lower than indicated here.

Water from New Surface Storage is Too Expensive for Agriculture: This analysis

reveals that Central Valley agricultural interests are unable to pay the cost of water

from these proposed facilities. For example, the Westlands Water District, the agricultural district in the Central Valley most vocal about its need for more water, now

pays $58 to $68 per acre-foot for water from the

Central Valley Project. Water from new surface storage, however, would cost $207

to $1,064 per acre-foot—far more than this water would be worth to farmers. These

cost estimates are almost certainly too low, because this analysis has not yet considered likely cost overruns or the needs of the environment.

253

Total Possible Subsidies: The Westlands Water District alone would be willing to

take the entire yield of new proposed facilities. Westlands and other agricultural interests have requested that they receive water from these facilities at current water

rates. If this request were granted and if Sites Reservoir were constructed and operated to deliver 242,000 acre-feet of water annually to the Westlands Water District,

it could result in a subsidy of nearly $100 million per year. This is an unlikely outcome, but, this estimate provides a sense of the scope of potential new subsidies.

These Cost Estimates Raise Questions about the Willingness of Urban Water

Users to Pay for These Facilities: Although urban willingness to pay for new surface

storage was not the focus of this analysis, these new cost estimates raise serious

questions about the willingness of urban water agencies to pay for new surface storage, given the availability of less expensive options (such as conservation, reclamation, water transfers and even desalination).

Background: Central Valley agricultural interests have led the charge for the construction of new and expanded dams to divert more water from California’s already

overtapped rivers. Water subsidies have long encouraged inefficient and excessive

water use. Further subsidized water projects could harm threatened ecosystems and

salmon runs. The CALFED plan requires that any future surface storage projects

be paid for by water users, not taxpayers. However, CALFED has not prepared specific proposals regarding the operation or financing of the new facilities it is evaluating.

Recommendations: As a result of this analysis, NRDC recommends that the

CALFED program: • Re-estimate the water supply benefits of proposed new and expanded dams.

• Revise its economic analysis regarding the cost-effectiveness of water supply

tools. • Increase the role of economics as a key tool to avoid unjustified projects and to

develop meaningful water supply reliability goals.

• Prepare draft operation plans for proposed new surface storage facilities to protect natural resources.

• Prepare specific draft financing plans for proposed new facilities, identifying

beneficiaries, willingness to pay, and implementing the CALFED ‘‘beneficiary

pays’’ principle.

Finally, we recommend that the CALFED program wait for full analyses to be

completed prior to making decisions regarding the justification for any individual

new surface storage facility.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE WESTERN WATER ENHANCEMENT SECURITY

ACT AND THE CALFED RECORD OF DECISION

JUNE 18, 2001

The bill conflicts with the state-federal partnership that is essential to the success

of CALFED.

The CALFED ROD is binding on both state and federal agencies. The bill would

fundamentally alter the ROD in a number of respects. These changes would bind

federal agencies. However, California agencies would continue to be bound by the

ROD. If the bill were to be enacted, state and federal agencies would be working

to implement different and, in some respects, conflicting programs. This would necessarily create conflicts between state and federal agencies regarding funding, findings regarding balanced implementation, as well as individual projects. At its heart,

CALFED is a cooperative arrangement between state and federal agencies. By legislatively altering the ROD and commitments made by federal agencies, the bill would

undermine this partnership.

The bill would undermine the CALFED ROD regarding surface storage.

The bill would eliminate congressional oversight and prematurely and inappropriately authorize dam projects, in conflict with the ROD: The CALFED ROD states

that once extensive required evaluations are completed and if specified criteria are

satisfied, it could be appropriate to seek authorization for expanded Shasta and Los

254

Vaqueros reservoirs at the end of 2004 (ROD, p. 44–45). Thus, the ROD reflects

Congress’ traditional requirement that the Bureau of Reclamation provide such

analyses (operations plans, financing plans, environmental documentation, etc.) before Congress votes to authorize construction. In contrast, the bill would require the

Secretary of the Interior to submit a report regarding specified projects to two committees. If those reports were not rejected by both committees within 60 days—a nearly impossible timeline, given the congressional calendar—projects would be

automatically authorized (Sec105(c)( 4)). Of course, Congress always has the ability

to withdraw authorization from a project. The bill would essentially provide full authorization to construct projects, contingent only on the submittal of a report to Congress. The bill also eliminates any role for the Senate Committee on Environment

and Public Works.

The bill would authorize projects that the CALFED ROD does not find worthy of

authorization: The CALFED ROD states that Site Reservoir and San Joaquin River

storage should be studied. However, both of these projects are very conceptual and

existing information regarding both suggest that they are infeasible. Indeed for the

San Joaquin River, CALFED has not even selected a site for a possible project.

Given the problems facing these projects and their highly preliminary nature, the

ROD does not even discuss dates for possible Congressional authorization (p. 45).

In contrast, the bill would authorize both of these projects, subject only to the submission of a report to Congress (Sec105(c)( 4)).

The bill would give the Secretary unprecedented authority to authorize projects

not included in, or even rejected by, the CALFED ROD: The CALFED program considered and rejected facilities such as Auburn Dam and the Peripheral Canal. However, the bill would provide the Secretary with authority to authorize for construction these or nearly any other facility in the CALFED solution area (Sec. 105((b)(1)).

The Secretary is directed to submit reports to authorize projects on behalf of the

governance board and in ‘‘cooperation’’ with the State of California. However, the

governance board has not been created, nor has the process by which this board

would make decisions been determined. Therefore, the bill would impose little practical constrain on the Secretary’s ability to authorize virtually any project in the

CALFED solution area, even projects explicitly rejected by CALFED.

The bill would require CALFED to pursue projects even if they are determined

not to be viable: The CALFED ROD calls for careful evaluation of proposed storage

projects prior to determining if they are viable and worthy of submission to Congress for authorization. Of course, should individual projects be determined to be not

viable, CALFED would conclude its analysis. However, the bill would require

CALFED to continue evaluations for facilities even if they are determined not to be

viable. For example, if CALFED determined that one of the listed projects is not

economically viable, the draft would still require the preparation and submission to

Congress of full, final environmental impact studies.

The bill would change the CALFED timeline: The bill shortens the timeline for

surface storage investigations in the San Joaquin Basin. The CALFED ROD does

not include a construction date for these projects, because they are currently so

speculative and expensive. The ROD does call for initial evaluations to be completed

by the middle of 2006. The bill requires a full report (final EIS, etc.) to be submitted

to Congress by January 2005.

The bill conflicts with CALFED commitments regarding the operation of storage.

The bill contains no safeguards that any new surface storage would be operated

as described in the ROD. Indeed, the operational goals envisioned by CALFED conflict with the historic CVP operation and current CVP contracts. The CALFED ROD

indicates that new surface storage would only be constructed if it would have broad

benefits. CALFED has explicitly rejected the Central Valley Project’s historic primary operational goal of maximizing yield. Instead, CALFED is investigating the

potential for storage to create ‘‘much needed flexibility in the system to improve

water quality and support fish restoration efforts’’ (ROD, p. 42). However, the bill

fails to implement this new direction. It is likely that new federal construction funds

would be directed to the Bureau of Reclamation. Such funds would likely to be used

to construct facilities such as expanding the Central Valley Project’s Shasta Dam.

The Central Valley Project (CVP) is already overcommitted. Specifically, the project

is unable to deliver full contract amounts for all CVP contractors. The Department’s

position regarding the renewal of CVP contracts would continue to commit to unrealistically high water delivery levels. If Shasta Dam were raised, or if other facilities

were constructed through the Bureau of Reclamation, it is highly likely that these

facilities would be operated as are current facilities. For example, 90 percent of the

water from the CVP is delivered to agricultural contractors at subsidized rates. The

CVP delivery assurances raise this probability to a near certainty. Such an operation for new storage facilities would not be consistent with the CALFED ROD,

255

however, the bill fails to require the operation of new storage facilities to be different from the status quo in the CVP.

The bill conflicts with the CALFED beneficiary pays financing requirements for

surface storage.

Current CVP operations present obstacles to a beneficiary pays program: The

ROD discussion of surface storage requires that ‘‘final cost allocations, however, will

be based on the principle of ‘‘beneficiaries pay ’’ (ROD, p. 47). There is, however,

no beneficiaries pay requirement in the bill regarding CALFED implementation. In

fact, the Bureau’s current interpretation of reclamation law does not permit them

to charge interest to CVP agricultural service contractors. Additional language

would be necessary to implement the CALFED beneficiaries pay principle.

The CALFED program has not completed cost allocations for surface storage: Repayment of principal and interest is only one facet of a credible beneficiary pays financing program. Equally important is the cost allocation process, by which total

project costs are allocated to beneficiaries. Traditionally, a large percentage of the

cost of water projects has been assigned, often without justification, to the public.

Despite repeated requests, CALFED has not developed a credible basis for the required cost allocations for proposed facilities. The bill fails to require a credible cost

allocation process.

CVP agricultural and even urban water contractors have paid only pennies on

each taxpayer dollar invested in the CVP. CALFED has clearly rejected this subsidized approach to water development. The bill, however, fails to implement the

new direction required by CALFED. A beneficiary pays financing program is essential to assure that the CALFED water supply program does not encourage inefficient water use and environmentally and economically unsound projects.

The bill would provide CVP growers with assurances that would undermine the

CALFED plan, ecosystem restoration, and other water users and increase pressure

for subsidies.

The CALFED ROD states that CALFED agencies ‘‘expect’’ the program to result

in 65 to 70 percent deliveries in average years. On the other hand, the bill would

guarantee 70 percent deliveries in years within 5 percent of normal (Sec. 103(a)(3)).

Thus, the bill directly undermines one of the most carefully written sections of the

ROD. It would provide a legal guarantee that was rejected by CALFED agencies.

It would also redefine the definition of a normal water year and increase the required level of delivery. The bill does not discuss what would happen if the CVP

were unable to meet the mandated delivery level. Several outcomes are possible. • Undermining State Law and Other Water Users: Despite some revisions to previous drafts, the language would appear to create a legal entitlement which

Westlands could use in existing and likely future litigation to attack many other

water users (EBMUD, Friant, Sac Valley, etc.) In this way, despite the language

in section 102(h), the bill appears to interfere with state water law.

• Undermining Environmental Protections: Perhaps the most likely short-term

outcome of this provision would be to force DOI to try to roll back environmental protections under the Clean Water Act, the ESA or the CVPIA.

• Prohibiting Purchases: The bill requires that CVP deliveries be maintained

without ‘‘reducing deliveries’’ to other users. Because voluntary transfers result

in reduced deliveries, the draft could be read to prohibit South of Delta transfers to maintain CVP delivery levels. This provision could prevent the EWA

from using water purchases, which have provided approximately half of the

water for the Environmental Water Account.

• Require development of new supplies: The bill would essentially give CVP contractors ‘‘first call’’ on all storage and on all water supply reliability funding

through CALFED until they had achieved clear reliability at this mandated

level. If the bill resulted in a requirement that deliveries be maintained at current costs, it would violate the ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ requirement of CALFED. The

bill would force water supply funding and CALFED tools to be designed to benefit CVP agricultural service contractors, at the expense of other water users

and other CALFED programs.

At a minimum, this provision would result in years of litigation and an ongoing,

and worsening problem. Westlands’ CVP contract expires in 2008. This provision,

however, would be permanent. It would create an enormous obstacle to negotiating

a realistic contract total. This problem would become worse over time as areas of

origin increase their demand, thereby reducing Delta supplies. This language could

be read as creating a permanent federal ‘‘export’’ right conflicting with state ‘‘area

of origin’’ rights.

The bill redefines the Environmental Water Account.

The bill would narrow the focus of the EWA: The definition of the EWA focuses

exclusively on ESA compliance (Sec.4(8)) and excludes the requirement in the ROD

256

that ROD the EWA also contribute to broader ecosystem restoration (p. 4). The bill

also requires first priority in managing the EWA to be given to meeting assurances

in the ROD (Sec. 103(b)(2)). This provision also establishes ecosystem restoration as

a secondary priority. This open ended language could be interpreted as guaranteeing

water users first call on EWA water, even when there is no corresponding reduction

in Delta pumping as described in the ROD.

The bill would eliminate the ‘‘tier 3 water’’ required by the ROD: The bill would

establish the maximum legal exposure of water users, in case of a failure of the

EWA (Sec. 103(b)(2). This definition excludes ‘‘tier 3’’ water which the ROD indicates may be required under some circumstances.

The bill is inconsistent with the ROD with regard to increased pumping from the

Delta: The ROD clearly indicates that the impacts of proposed increases in State

Pumping are not ‘‘covered’’ by the EWA (p. 49). The bill could be read to violate the

ROD by requiring the EWA and the ERP to ‘‘maximize the water supply benefits

to be provided by the increased pumping capacity’’ (Sec. 103(a)(4)(B)). The impacts

of this increase should be addressed through mitigation in a new operations plan

required by the ROD. They should not be addressed by using the EWA and the ERP

as a mitigation fund for increases in Banks pumping.

The bill would turn the EWA and the Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) into

a permanent mitigation fund for water users throughout nearly the entire state.

The bill would require the EWA and the ERP to be used to offset all impacts from

ESA protections on all water rights holders in the Bay–Delta solution area. This

provision would insulate most California water users from ESA actions related to

water allocations, even those having nothing to do with the Bay–Delta. It could also

be read to require CALFED to pay all ESA-related water costs from future water

development in the entire Bay–Delta solution area, forever. The lack of a clearly defined baseline (an issue carefully addressed in the ROD) would likely result in significant legal uncertainty.

The bill interferes with ecosystem restoration.

The bill blocks land acquisition: The bill would prohibit federal OR State land

purchases for ecosystem restoration until a management plan is adopted (Sec.

103(c)). The bill could override state initiatives through CALFED program and halt

essential ecosystem restoration efforts. In addition, the bill would require all state

and federal CALFED ecosystem land acquisition efforts to be halted permanently

if, for any reason, this plan not be adopted by January 1, 2003.

The bill creates a new mitigation responsibility: The bill requires mitigation for ‘‘cumulative impact on the local government and communities’’ from all CALFED

land acquisitions. These impacts are not defined, nor is mitigation. This provision

would create a new open-ended mitigation obligation that could be a significant obstacle to ecosystem restoration and a significant legal liability for CALFED (Sec.

102(f)).

The bill redefines the CALFED program. The bill would require CALFED to develop partnerships with ‘‘landowners and local governments’’ to meet ‘‘coequal objectives of achieving local economic and social goals and to implement the ecosystem

restoration goals in the record of decision.’’ (section 102(g). This provision would redefine the purpose of any CALFED ecosystem restoration project that required land

acquisition. Such ‘‘local economic and social goals’’ are undefined and have never

been discussed in the CALFED program. This requirement could hamstring the ecosystem restoration program.

The bill limits ecosystem funding: The bill requires ‘‘equal funding’’ for yield improvements and environmental benefits in 2002 (Sec. 101(b)(2)). This requirement

ignores the fact that some ‘‘ecosystem’’ funding provides direct water user benefits

(e.g. fish screens). Such a requirement could reduce funding for ecosystem restoration and interfere with a balanced program. It could also reduce funding for the Environmental Water Account, which could effectively terminate CALFED’s efforts to

reduce the impacts of the Endangered Species Act on water users.

The bill would give water users first priority in allocating Ecosystem Restoration

Program assets. The bill would establish the delivery of water to CVP and SWP contractors as the first priority of the Ecosystem Restoration Program (Sec. 103(b)(2)).

This provision, which is discussed above, would turn the EWA and the Ecosystem

Restoration Program into a mitigation fund for existing and future water development.

The bill would interfere with balanced funding of the CALFED program.

The specificity in the bill regarding the storage and deliver assurances would establish these as the de facto priorities for federal funding. There are no comparable

requirements for any other section of the CALFED program. The likely result is

that funding for other CALFED programs (e.g. water use efficiency, ecosystem restoration, water quality) would receive lower priority in the appropriation process.

257

The bill does not clarify the relationship between the Small Reclamation Projects

(Title II) and the CALFED program.

Would the Small Reclamation Projects be consistent with the CALFED Ecosystem

Restoration Program? The CALFED ROD requires water supply activities to be compatible with, indeed to further, the ecosystem restoration program. However, given

the damaging impacts of much water development, projects funded through the

Small Reclamation Projects could undermine the CALFED ecosystem restoration

program.

How would the Small Reclamation Projects be considered in the annual balancing

determination process? The CALFED program requires an annual finding of balanced implementation. It is not clear, however, how the Small Reclamation Projects

be considered in this finding.

The bill does not clarify the scope of the Small Reclamation Projects. The bill does

not provide clarity regarding the scope of the program. Is funding from this title intended to be for activities that are not eligible for CALFED funding? Could the

Water Supply Program fund projects that CALFED has rejected as inappropriate?

The bill contains a clear bias towards supply-side actions.

The bill abandons CALFED’s water supply reliability goal, which treats equally

water management actions that would improve reliability through increasing supply

or decreasing demand. The bill incorporates a ‘‘yield’’ concept that CALFED rejected

(Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(14), Sec. 104(b)(1)(A)) . This ‘‘yield’’ approach does not discuss, and

may exclude, key reliability tools such as water transfers and land retirement.

The bill would create guarantees that could allow water users to avoid repayment

of loans.

The bill would create loan guarantees that would allow water users to default on

loans. This provision would defeat other sections of the bill that would require repayment of loans with interest (Sec. 105(b)(2)). It would also violate the ‘‘beneficiary

pays’’ provision of the ROD.

The bill would fail to promote balanced implementation of the CALFED program.

The bill would direct the Department of Interior to emphasize CVP deliveries and

surface storage development, at the expense of other elements of the CALFED program. The bill fails to encourage the implementation of other key CALFED ROD

requirements, including:

Dedicated Ecosystem Restoration Funding: The ROD requires the establishment of new broad-based water user fees of at least $35 million per year to support ecosystem restoration (ROD, page 38). The bill should provide that establishment of

such a dedicated restoration funding is necessary for a federal finding of balanced

implementation of the CALFED program. In addition, the bill should direct DOI, in

concert with the state, to develop recommendations for a diverse set of funding

mechanisms to ensure stability in funding for the restoration program over the longterm.

Beneficiary Pays Financing Plans for Proposed Surface Storage: The ROD requires beneficiaries to pay the true costs of new surface storage facilities. The bill

should require DOI to complete a financing plan reflecting CALFED’s beneficiary

pays requirement for each proposed surface storage facility. Such plans should be

submitted at least one year prior to congressional consideration of any proposed facility (ROD, pages 45 and 47).

Environmental Restoration Water: The ROD requires CALFED to acquire a minimum of 100,000 acre-feet of additional water per year to implement the ecosystem

restoration program on upstream tributaries (ROD, page 36).

Program Consistency: The bill fails to require all agencies receiving federal support to ensure that CALFED supported water projects constructed or operated in

the Central Valley contribute to the CALFED ecosystem restoration program and

do not undermine the achievement of the CALFED restoration objectives (ROD,

page 43).

Water Use Efficiency Funding: The bill fails to require DOI to submit to Congress,

by July 2001, a detailed finance proposal, including local cost sharing, to assure that

federal taxpayer investments in water use efficiency are cost-effective and provide

near-term benefits for water users and ecosystem restoration (ROD, page 62).

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Implementation: The bill fails to require the

DOI to complete, by August 2001, specific milestones, associated benefits, remedies

and consequences for the agricultural water use efficiency program (ROD, page 62).

Delta Drinking Water Quality: The bill fails to require the EPA, in cooperation

with the State, to establish a comprehensive drinking water policy for the Delta and

upstream tributaries by the end of 2004 (ROD, page 67).

Science: The bill fails to require DOI to develop and implement the science-based

milestones, models, indicators, reports and programs described in the ROD (ROD,

page 76). The bill does not provide dedicated funding to implement the science

258

program or ensure that the scope of the science program includes review of all aspects of the CALFED program, not just the restoration element.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Diridon, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF ROD DIRIDON, JR., COUNCIL MEMBER,

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. DIRIDON. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Lofgren, thank you

for the opportunity to speak with you today and to provide some

testimony on Northern California’s water security, opportunities,

and challenges.

My name is Rod Diridon, Jr., and I’m a City Council Member for

the City of Santa Clara and Chairman of the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee for the jointly owned San Jose, Santa Clara

Water Pollution Control Plan also know as WPCP. I also have the

endorsement of San Jose ́ Mayor Ron Gonzales for these comments.

The City of Santa Clara has consistently supported the progress

of CALFED which provides the most promising in resolving the

problems in the Bay-Delta. My comments today will focus on the

regions cooperative efforts to improve the water shed, protect endangered species, and provide a drought-proof water supply

through an aggressive and successful recycled water program.

The San Jose, Santa Clara WPCP is one of the nation’s largest

advanced watershed treatment plants serving 1.3 million residents

and businesses in eight cities and the adjacent unincorporated

county areas of the South Bay.

In 1991 with assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Santa Clara, San Jose, and other agencies involved with the Water

Pollution and Control Plan designed and built a regional water recycling project, the largest of its kind in Northern California. It

consist of over 60 miles of distribution pipeline, three pump stations, and a 4 million gallon reservoir.

The initial impetus for constructing this system was to protect

endangered species by avoiding the potential for salt marsh conversion at the watershed discharge point into the San Francisco Bay.

Water recycling provides other environmental and economic benefits such as watershed protection and drought-proof water supplies. Although the plan is designed for capacity of up to 167 million gallons per day, a trigger of only 120 million gallons a day was

set by the state and Federal Governments in 1990 to protect

against potential marsh conversion.

Phase 1 of the South Bay Water Recycling Program was completed at a cost of $140 million and became fully operational in

1998. This summer we expect to deliver an average of 10 million

gallons a day with peak demand up to 15 million gallons. The system has the potential to divert 50 to 100 million gallons per day,

depending on additional distribution pipelines and pumps.

To ensure the economy of Silicon Valley can maximize its potential and contribute to state and national economies as well, we are

fully engaged in expanding our commitment and reliance on this

incredibly valuable resource.

There are over 300 customers of the system currently, and more

are added each quarter. The City of San Jose ́ has been negotiating

259

a cooperative agreement with Calpine/Bechtel in the event that the

California Energy Commission approves an operating license this

summer for the proposed 600 megawatt Metcalf Energy Center.

This is a key element of the agreement and this is how to meet

the power plant’s need for an average of 3 million gallons of water

per day. This will be recycled water when it comes on line in 2003.

A 10-mile pipeline extension would be required to serve the

power plant. If sized to supply other customers further south, the

projected cost of $50 million would be required to implement this

program.

The water district, hence the City of San Jose, are beginning to

negotiations to work out a partnership for funding and operation

of this pipeline. We are proceeding with an $82 million expansion

of the South Bay Water Recycling Program expected to increase the

system capacity, improve operational flexibility, and manage the

treatment plants diversional requirements to 2006.

South Bay Water Recycling could potentially be even further expanded and fully integrated into the overall water supply of Santa

Clara County and play a strategic role in environmental protection,

water use efficiency, and water supply reliability through 2020.

Through all of these efforts by local cities, the Santa Clara Valley

Water District, and other agencies, this region is becoming a leader

in sustainable water use, integrating water supply and waste water

discharge through innovations in water recycling and conservation.

Federal financial support of recycled water through CALFED and

other mechanisms cannot help Silicon Valley leverage local funding

and realize its vision of water supply reliability, water use efficiency, and water protection. We ask for your help to reduce the

projected deficit in local water supplies, meet the EPA mandate to

protect endangered species, and ask for your continued funding.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing us with the opportunity

to address our progress and our concerns and we look forward to

working with you and Senator Feinstein as both bills move through

the process. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diridon follows:]

Statement of Rod Diridon, Jr., Council Member, City of Santa Clara, and

Chairman, Treatment Plant Advisory Committee, San Jose ́/Santa Clara

Water Pollution Control Plant

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

to provide testimony on Northern California Water Security—Opportunities and

Challenges. My name is Rod Diridon, Jr., and I am a Council Member from the City

of Santa Clara and Chairman of the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee for the

jointly-owned San Jose ́/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. I also have the

endorsement of San Jose ́ Mayor Ron Gonzales.

The City of Santa Clara has consistently supported the progress of CALFED

which provides the most promise in resolving the problems in the Bay–Delta. We

appreciate the opportunity to address the water recycling in our region, given the

important role it can play in providing a more reliable water system in Silicon Valley.

As you have heard in other testimony, securing additional high quality water supplies is of paramount importance. Instead of restating this concern, I will focus on

the region’s cooperative efforts to improve the watershed, protect endangered species, and provide a drought-proof water supply through an aggressive and successful

recycled water program.

The San Jose ́/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is one of the nation’s

largest advanced wastewater treatment plants. The regional plant serves 1.3 million

residents and businesses of eight cities, and the adjacent unincorporated county

260

areas in the South Bay. It is jointly owned by the cities of San Jose ́ and Santa

Clara, with representation of the tributary agencies provided through a Treatment

Plant Advisory Committee (or TPAC).

In 1991, with assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Santa Clara, San

Jose ́ and other agencies involved with the Water Pollution Control Plant designed

and built a regional water recycling project, the largest of its kind in Northern

California. It consists of over sixty miles of distribution pipeline, three pump stations, and a four million-gallon reservoir.

Initial impetus for constructing the system was to protect endangered species by

avoiding the potential for salt marsh conversion at the wastewater discharge point

into San Francisco Bay. Water recycling provides other environmental and economic

benefits—such as watershed protection and a drought-proof supply of water. Although the plant has a design capacity of 167 million gallons a day, a trigger of only

120 million gallons a day was set by state and federal governments in 1990 to protect against potential marsh conversion.

Phase 1 of the South Bay Water Recycling Program was completed at a cost of

$140 million and became fully operational in 1998. This summer we expect to deliver an average of 10 million gallons a day with peak demand up to 15 million gallons. The system has the potential to divert 50 to 100 million gallons per day, depending on additional distribution pipelines and pumps.

To ensure the economy of Silicon Valley can maximize its potential and contribute

to state and national economies as well, we are fully engaged in expanding our commitment and reliance on this incredibly valuable resource:

• There are over 300 customers of the system currently, and more are added each

quarter.

• The City of San Jose ́ has been negotiating a cooperative agreement with

Calpine/Bechtel in the event that the California Energy Commission approves

an operating license this summer for the proposed 600 megawatt Metcalf Energy Center. A key element of that agreement is how to meet the power plant’s

need for an average of 3 million gallons a day of recycled water when it comes

on line in 2003. A 10-mile pipeline extension would be required to serve the

power plant. If sized to supply other customers further south, the projected cost

is $50 million. The Water District and San Jose ́ are beginning negotiations to

work out a partnership for funding and operating this pipeline.

• We are proceeding with an $82 million expansion of the South Bay Water Recycling Program, expected to increase system capacity, improve operational flexibility, and manage the Treatment Plant’s diversion requirements to 2006.

• South Bay Water Recycling could potentially be even further expanded and fully

integrated into the overall water supply of Santa Clara County and play a strategic role in environmental protection, water use efficiency, and water supply reliability through 2020.

Through all of these efforts by local cities, the Santa Clara Valley Water District,

and other agencies, this region is becoming a leader in sustainable water use, integrating water supply and wastewater discharge through innovations in water recycling and conservation.

Federal financial support of water recycling through CALFED and other mechanisms can help Silicon Valley leverage local funding and realize its vision of water

supply reliability, water use efficiency, and environmental protection. Otherwise, we

may not meet our goals in helping reduce the projected deficit in local water supplies, and the EPA mandate to protect endangered species.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to address our

progress, and our concerns. We look forward to working with you and Senator Feinstein as both bills move through the process.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Couple of comments. I’ve heard people refer to both H.R. 1985

and Senator Feinstein’s bill as fast tracking or preauthorization of

projects within CALFED. It’s difficult to say fast track and Federal

Government in the same sentence without losing half the audience.

The reality of it is that we, I think, create a better process. At

least that’s in my mind’s eye, to move toward potential development of those additional water storage projects.

It certainly isn’t fast track and it certainly does not stop for continued input into the development of those projects. Certainly it

261

has to go through an ongoing authorization process and it has to

go through an appropriation process which in itself is a difficult

one at best. When people say that, I obviously disagree but, nevertheless, everyone certainly has the right to their own opinion.

As far as the development of some of these additional storage

projects, too, people must realize that it’s not just storage for additional quantities of water, but it is also storage for flexibility and

water quality. As I’m sure some of the people here at the table understand, that we also have the need for flexibility during periods

of drought and also a better quality of water for various purposes.

But to start off the question, Dr. Gleick, I used to be Chairman

of the Energy Environment Committee so I spent many days and

evenings going to hearings on global warming so I am somewhat

familiar with the issue. I’ve read a number of papers. As a matter

of fact, the last one that just came out regarding global warming

and its effect on the snowpack in the High Sierras.

Obviously, the snowpack is a storage vehicle in itself because it

releases water as it melts and our existing water storage availability in California is somewhat dependent upon that type of activity.

So if, in fact, you believe in global warming, then that changes

the paradigm. It could possibly change that paradigm in that we

could have less snow melt but more water flow. We’re not quite

sure based upon the studies I’ve read but that could happen.

And the problem would be that we would be unable to trap water

if, in fact, that occurs because we may have to release water because we don’t have enough storage capability if, in fact, those kind

of things occur.

So as we look down the road, and I’m sure we’ll be studying this

as we do here, does that mean that we should have additional storage in California if, in fact, you follow that new paradigm. If, in

fact, global warming is going to occur as some people say it is, and

this will change the Sierra amount of storage that we are having

in snowpack, what does that do to the existing paradigm of storage

in California?

Mr. GLEICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your point is exactly

right. Despite the many uncertainties about climate change, the

thing in California that we are perhaps most certain of is that

higher temperatures will mean dramatic changes in the snowpack,

changes in the timing of runoff in California which, in turn, poses

challenges for water management.

Our snow runoff already poses challenges for our water management. And our system, the system of reservoirs, and the way we

manage those reservoirs is designed based on the assumption that

the future will look like the past and that is no longer the case.

Will that mean a requirement for more storage is a question that

we don’t know the answer to yet. What is recommended in the National Assessment Water Report is that it’s time to begin evaluating the way we manage the existing system.

First of all, the existing system is managed in terms of timing

of releases and filling for flood control and a water supply regime

based on past climate. It’s time to start looking at the way that

system might operate if climate change becomes a reality, or as climate change becomes a reality.

262

Let me give you one example. A study was done at Georgia Tech

for the National Assessment looking at Folsom. Folsom, as you

know, provides flood control for Sacramento and there’s a great

deal of concern now about the ability of Folsom to adequately provide protection.

Under one of the scenarios of climate change, which is warmer

and also wetter, if we operate Folsom the way it is currently operated, flood damages downstream go up enormously on the order of

$220 million a year increase in flood damages.

The study also looked at changing the way we operate Folsom.

The results suggested that if we change the way we operate the

system, not build a different size— Mr. CALVERT. I read the same report. That indicates you have to

have 100 percent depletion of the water within Folsom.

Mr. GLEICK. No, no, no. Not at all.

Mr. CALVERT. As I understood it, you have to dramatically lower

the reservoir capacity in order to make sure you have enough capacity to capture snowmelt because without even additional levee

construction downstream because Sacramento right now has

about—it depends on who you talk to—anywhere from 70 to 80-

year flood protection. You’re saying you can go ahead and leave

Folsom’s existing level with the existing water commitments and

contracts downstream without any modification and still provide

for that kind of flood control?

Mr. GLEICK. Yes, that’s correct. I’ll be happy to send this study

on to your office.

Mr. CALVERT. Send that over to me. I would love to see it.

Mr. GLEICK. The conclusion is that changing operations at any

of our reservoirs may turn out to be much more effective than we

think but we haven’t done those studies yet. The first line of defense is to look at that. It’s much cheaper to model the way we operate the system and figure out what we have to do than to try and

build storage.

Mr. CALVERT. I think we agree that if, in fact, that we are going

to have a change of climate for whatever reason, I mean, we could

get into a debate of whether it’s caused by humans or caused by

a naturally occurring change in weather that we go through from

time to time.

If, in fact, we are going through a stage of global warming, that

we probably ought to plan on that and have long-term analysis of

what kinds of effects both positive and negatives that can happen

to our state as long-term planners we should look at that. That is

the point I wanted to make.

Mr. Nelson, I’ve been hearing this continuing criticism of fast

tracking or preauthorizing projects. Which project did we

preauthorize outside of the Record of Decision?

Mr. NELSON. A host of projects. There are a number. The projects

include Los Vaqueros.

Mr. CALVERT. When you say preauthorizing, are you saying that

the state legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives, in fact,

are preauthorizing the construction of these projects?

How is that done in the aspect of you have to go out and get

money and you still have to go through the environmental process

and NEPA process in order to get the various permissions that are

263

involved in developing any kind of water project or anything in the

State of California.

Mr. NELSON. If I could, I’ll contrast the CALFED Program with

what is in H.R. 1985.

The CALFED Program very clearly laid out in the timeliness in

the CALFED Record of Decision says that operational plans and financial analyses—economic analyses and a financing plan, environmental analyses would be completed before Congress was asked to

approve construction. As you know, Congressman—

Mr. CALVERT. We’re a long ways from approving construction. I

mean if, in fact, we are successful in moving forward H.R. 1985

and Senator Feinstein is successful in moving her legislation and

we are successful in coming together with a conference, and if we

are successful in getting the President of the United States to sign

it, then we have to go through another process of looking at these

projects that may or may not be developed, and then we need to

come back to the United States House of Representatives, ask for

an appropriation United States Senate, ask for an appropriation,

go back to Congress, ask for an appropriation, have the President

of the United States agree to it.

Now, you know, if there isn’t enough checks and balances in that.

I tell my friends that and they say, ‘‘What kind of preauthorization

is that?’’ If I had the power to preauthorize and preappropriate

things, I would like to do it but I don’t. A legislative process is a

slow and cumbersome one at best.

I would attest to you, sir, that there is nothing that is going to

be built without plenty of time and opportunity for our various

friends in the environmental community to have a lot of input if,

in fact, these projects are built.

I think perceptually we are trying to create some balance here

and that we need to move the process forward in a more balanced

and equitable way but we may have a difference of opinion there.

Certainly we are not preauthorizing anything.

Mr. NELSON. I’m a little confused, Congressman. As I read your

bill, it would eliminate a vote of full Congress to authorize construction.

Mr. CALVERT. We certainly streamlined the process but there is

plenty of time for various groups and organizations to stay involved

in the process to the point of appropriation of actual development

of a project.

Mr. NELSON. Our concern, though, is precisely the one you mentioned, and that is if appropriations become the primary venue for

discussion of facilities, we are very concerned with regard to facing

what we saw with Auburn Dam last week and that is the necessity

for a floor fight in the House of Representatives regarding a facility

that we believe, most believe, the City of Sacramento and a variety

of other folks believe is simply not necessary. The Corps of Engineers as well.

Mr. CALVERT. Obviously that didn’t happen so I would attest we

are going to try to move a bill that is balanced and working with

everyone. As you well know, we’ve had discussions with, I think,

everyone in this room I’ve talked to on one occasion or another.

Controversies around water are very well known in the state and,

264

by the way, in the western United States that we are trying to deal

with in a reasonable way, I think.

Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. This has been a very helpful discussion to understand where the disagreements are and even potential points of

agreement in how we might move forward. I’m one of the co-founders of the Climate Change Caucus in the House of Representatives

which is a bipartisan group that meets on a regular basis looking

at the science of climate change and the implications for our country and our planet.

I think it is quite clear that we are well along in the climate

change scenario and no matter what we do, it cannot be averted

even. If we did everything right in terms of our emissions policies,

which we probably will not do, we are up for several decades before

we could effect—at the best before we could effect that curve.

One of the questions I have, and I don’t have the answer, and

maybe I could ask Dr.—is it Gleick?

Mr. GLEICK. Gleick.

Ms. LOFGREN. We don’t know what the implications will be because the analysis of the climate is so incredibly complex you can’t

make sure predictions. One of the issues that we discussed today

is the snowpack issue.

Clearly if temperatures rise snowpacks will fall but there is no

guarantee that the rainfall for this region would also be impacted.

At least some of the scenarios show a rather important decrease

in rainfall over all and precipitation over all. That’s not to say that

those analyses are correct.

I notice in your written testimony, as well as Mr. Nelson’s, and

I think the prior panel, there was discussion of desalinization as

an option for California. I’m interested in your comments in two

ways. First, in looking at this, and Congressman Drew

Cunningham is someone who spent a lot of time on this issue from

Southern California. He and I have often discussed that the impediment seems to be, first, sufficient inexpensive and reliable energy to make that a viable option.

I have a question. How do we put that into the equation? Certainly our infrastructure is not set up for that option. If you have

a comment on the infrastructure and delivery implications for desalination being a portion of our solution if you could address that.

Mr. GLEICK. I would be happy to. Desalinization is a well understood technology. Probably 1 percent of the world’s drinking water

supply actually now is desalinated in one form or another, mostly

in areas that are extremely water short and extremely energy rich.

The Persian Gulf in particular.

Desalination, I think, is unlikely to play a significant role in

California’s future for quite a while for two reasons. One is it is

still very expensive. It is still twice as expensive as what the average urban residential homeowner pays.

In fact, the experiment that Santa Barbara went through in

building a desalination plant was quite informative. They built a

desalination plant during the last drought. The water from that

plant was so expensive that local homeowners turned to conservation and were extremely effective at reducing their water use. That

plant is now shut down. It’s mothballed.

265

Desalination has become cheaper since then and there are some

opportunities to reduce the cost further. I think it will never be— Ms. LOFGREN. Never say never.

Mr. GLEICK. Never say never.

Ms. LOFGREN. We’ve got our fusion bill coming online.

Mr. GLEICK. For a long time it’s not going to be cheaper than

other options available to us. Water use efficiency improvements

are enormously more cost effective. I might go so far as to say it

will never be cheap enough for agricultural use.

It may be cheap enough for very high-valued industrial use at

the coast but the minute you have to move it anywhere, the costs

go even higher. Small uses perhaps. Santa Barbara is exploring the

possibility—I’m sorry, San Diego is exploring the possibility of

building a plant but I don’t think it will be a big contributor to

California’s water supply.

Ms. LOFGREN. If I could, one of the criticisms that you made, Mr.

Nelson, in your written testimony was your belief that the bill that

Mr. Calvert has introduced advantages the Central Valley farmers

to the detriment of other water users. Could you explain your

thinking on that so I understand it?

Mr. NELSON. I would be happy to. There are actually two ways

in which that would take place. The Santa Clara Water District is

a contractor of the Central Valley project, as are Central Valley agricultural interests. The bill establishes guaranteed level of delivery for the Westlands Water District for agricultural use in the

Central Valley.

As I read the bill, it sets up certainly the possibility that some

of the water that would be necessarily provided to Central Valley

agriculture could come out of water supplies that would be demanded by East Bay MUD, by Santa Clara Valley, by a number

of other water users.

The second way in which it could affect water users here in Silicon Valley is with regard to what is called the environmental

water account set up as an insurance policy to allow protection of

the Delta to take place without affecting south of Delta water

users. A real win/win. It is a program that we support if we can

make sure that it works properly.

H.R. 1985 would expand that program, we think, to the breaking

point. Expanding it so it would be designed to benefit folks in other

parts of the state who the program simply wasn’t designed to benefit.

If that were to take place, we believe the environmental water

account wouldn’t work. Those protections would fall apart and we

would probably see litigation and what we have seen in the past

which is less predictable water supplies out of the Delta for Santa

Clara County and other folks as well.

Mr. CALVERT. Obviously I disagree with that, Mr. Nelson. We

don’t tough the 800,000 acre-feet in the primary environmental account, nor do we want to move ahead with a separate environmental account on water.

And we’re talking about 70 percent of normal year guarantee on

water which was outlined in the agreement with Secretary Babbitt

and Mr. Hayes prior to their departure, and Governor Davis. Obviously these are issues that we continue to work on and are very

266

emotional throughout the State of California certainly to the farming industry.

But I think certainly farming is an important industry in the

state as we have heard from various testimony. They have done

probably more in the last few years to move toward conserving

water and using water in a better way than they have in the last

50 years. I think we ought to work toward a solution to this problem.

I think if we work, I obviously believe, with creating more water

supply, we’ll have more water for the environment and still be able

to maintain a viable agriculture industry in the State of California.

On the desalination issue, because I’ve been kind of following

this thing a little bit, and I agree with you. I think desalination

is probably way off because of its utilization of water until we get

a cheap energy source. Congresswoman Lofgren and I have worked

together on fusion and other science issues in the past and will

continue to do so.

By the way, there are several areas, the City of Carson and the

City of Long Beach, primarily preheated water that is coming out

of the power utilization that they could bring the cost down of desalination. There are some new technologies. Some people believe

we could do it between $700 and $800 an acre-foot. I find that

somewhat dubious but, nevertheless, we are working toward that.

Desalination really works on brackish water and the efforts that

we are doing on reclamation and utilization of those type of water

resources to reuse are somewhat successful and we can do it at an

economical cost, $100 to $200 an acre-foot.

This legislation allows for Federal dollars to be used to be leveraged with state and local money to do exactly that. I don’t know

very many people that are opposed to those projects being developed. Certainly here in Northern California and the Central Valley

and Southern California and throughout the State of California

and through the West are these types of projects.

Do any of you want to comment whether you agree that these

kind of projects are necessary in the state for us to meet future

water needs?

Dr. Gleick and Mr. Nelson.

Mr. GLEICK. Which projects in particular?

Mr. CALVERT. Well, we have a project, one down south that

SAWPA is developing, for instance, to develop 100,000 acre-feet of

water through reclamation recharging an aquifer and being able to

bring that water back up and actually will clean up the aquifer because the water going in will be cleaner than the water that is in

the aquifer at the present time. There are other reclamation

projects. The City of San Diego is interested in doing those types

of things certainly right up in this area as was mentioned in prior

testimony.

Certainly, Mr. Diridon, you may want to comment about reclamation efforts here in the Santa Clara, San Jose ́ area. Conjunctive use between San Francisco and Sacramento. It is remarkable

to have some of these communities working together that have

been at war on water. I find out there are about 100 water wars

going on in the State of California and we are trying to resolve one

at a time.

267

Mr. GLEICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In general I’m a big fan of innovative projects. We actually testified previously in front of your

committee on a report we did on 40 examples of successful sustainable water resource management that include reclamation and efficiency and innovative projects with farmers and environmentalists

to restore ecosystem.There are a lot of very smart innovative things

going on.

Mr. CALVERT. You think the Federal Government should participate in things like this to help leverage state and local money to

develop these kind of water resources?

Mr. GLEICK. In certain cases, yes. Without being specific it’s hard

to judge. I’m also not—

Mr. CALVERT. What about Mr. Diridon on his project. Do you

think his project should have some Federal assistance in helping

him out? I bet Mr. Diridon would say yes.

Mr. DIRIDON. It might help a little.

Mr. CALVERT. How about Mr. Nelson. You had a comment. Do

you want to support Mr. Diridon in his water project?

Mr. NELSON. You bet. You bet we do. A couple of comments.

First, Congressman, I agree with you. I think the energy cost of desalination is substantial. That cost is coming down in some cases,

as you mentioned. With brackish water it is certainly more affordable.

We would love to find a way to make that the silver bullet for

California’s water needs. Right now it clearly isn’t. We don’t oppose. We believe we should be putting some Federal resources in

that area. We also think it’s very important we make sure our

state money, our Federal money, and our local money is spent

where it is going to be most effective.

Right now it appears that desalination is not in that place. Is it

a technology of the future? Maybe, and we shouldn’t ignore it. I

would also note that when CALFED did its own economic analysis,

desalination was not the most expensive tool. Some of the surface

storage facilities we are looking at are more expensive than desalination.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, we get into that surface storage. Obviously

we’re not doing on-stream storage anymore. That is virtually impossible to do. Most of the storage that we’re talking about is offstream storage. Off-stream storage by definition is more expensive

because we have to get water to that.

A great example of that, of course, in my district in Southern

California with Diamond Valley Lake to store 800,000 acre-feet of

water. Very expensive. Very expensive. No one disputes that Sites,

the reservoir I suppose you were talking about, would be very expensive but it also adds flexibility with existing water supplies,

blended water supplies, which brings down the real cost of that

number. I suspect that number at $400 an acre-foot, you are bringing in the capital cost and the real cost of water based upon whatever formula you may have used.

Mr. NELSON. We used the formula that CALFED used. We simply used their formula for calculating cost.

Mr. CALVERT. But it certainly adds flexibility and certainly adds

water quality to the system which is, in my mind, necessary and

268

something we’ve been studying. I think probably Sites is about as

studied as most any water project that we’ve ever gone through.

Obviously it is expensive but it is, in my mind, necessary along

with water reclamation. As far as desalination is concerned, we

probably will look toward a couple of demonstration projects in

California to try to bring that technology along because I think

that’s important.

We won’t probably put a lot of resources in it but some because

science is important and to understand desalination in a better

way and new technologies that are coming up I think is important.

The utilization of desalination on brackish water is economical. It

works. SAWPA I think is a great example of that and I think we

ought to move it forward.

Any other comments? Yes, ma’am.

Ms. WELLS. I would like to say that for 20 some years those of

us on the CVP side in the Sacramento Valley have implemented

and have been following a very stringent water management and

conservation plan. I would say that we are in the 80 percentile efficiency.

The interesting thing, if I could sort of characterize my position

as a landowner, I have often felt in the last 20 years that it was

at the bottom of the food chain relative to watching my supply diminish. The difference now is that I view this as an opportunity

to be a cornerstone or a building block. With such simple things as

streamlining transfers in basin, facilitating conveyance.

These are obstacles because of price or facilities. Often times

they are not very expensive things. They are just a willingness for

the agencies and those involved and our neighbors who supply us

with additional water. We have a world of water rights and resources in Northern California. We are now looking to approach it

that what can we do in an integrated management plan.

The cornerstone of it is meeting the needs of those in basin that

have been facing water shortages. By doing that you develop

groundwater. If there is groundwater, you monitor it so there is not

the fear so much of shipping everything out of the basin. There is

so much going on right now and I think legislation such as what

you are proposing does leverage with Federal and state funding to

get those things done.

At the same time we don’t believe that is enough to result all of

the state’s problem relative to the growing population. Look at the

increased demands from the environment. As I said in my testimony, every year we see more and more of our water be taken for

that.

It’s not to say that it shouldn’t occur but we have to meet that

need. We do it in basin with all of the less expensive things and

as we develop off-stream storage, yes, there is a very expensive

price component. But the way I understand it, the flexibility, as

you have mentioned, is phenomenal.

Look at water temperature alone. If you were to put a drop of

green dye in Sites and blue in Shasta and we had an excessive winter, we had a very good winter supply, you could release water out

of Shasta into Sites. There are times then you could hold the cold

water. We may actually use water for the farming in the valley out

of Sites but use the pricing structure.

269

It’s an exchange situation where water would then be made

available for temperature purposes and then move to the Delta and

supply water to the south at a price that is more affordable to

them. There is just a host of flexibility and exchange issues that

certainly warrant the leveraging and the possibility of doing these

things.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Diridon, do you have any other comments?

Mr. DIRIDON. A last word on water recycling. A reminder we currently recycle 10 to 15 million gallons a day through WCPC and

the water recycling programs but the potential to 50 to 100 million

gallons that we could recycle every day.

That’s a good thing. That’s good for the environment because it

helps us avoid salt marsh conversion. It’s good for industry because

it provides reliable, clean water supply. It’s good for our communities because if our economy is strong and our environment is

strong, it leads to a better quality of life.

We need continued help from CALFED and from the Federal

Government. I’ll ask that while you work through some of these

issues that have been talked about today, that you do continue to

advocate on behalf of that funding and allow us to continue to do

our job locally.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, like so many things, there is no one answer

and we are going to have to do all sorts of things. I was recently

talking to a Member of Congress from a different part of the country in explaining that we are conserving energy. We are the most

efficient among all the 50 states in per capita energy usage in

California.

Really a lot of it was the trading of the last drought. I remember

1978, which was the first memory I have on the drought, how all

of a sudden you couldn’t take showers and you couldn’t—I mean,

it was intense. To this day I don’t leave the water running when

I brush my teeth. It drives me crazy when people do that. You permanently change habits and conservation is going to be part of this

answer for water as well as using technology.

We have been financial partners on the reclamation effort here.

I think actually we should do a little bit more, not only in this

county but throughout the state of California. That is clearly part

of the solution. I don’t think anyone is arguing it.

I would like to take a moment to pitch the bill that we’re working on. Fusion energy obviously is a longer-term project, but I do

believe that we need to use the best science minds we have to secure that sort of energy for our country and the world of decades

hence when we come to grips with the finite quality of some of our

other energy resources. That will also be part of the water solution

if we manage to achieve in that area.

Thinking about energy, and that clearly is the constraint on desalination, there are energy costs to move water as well. When we

were trying to cope with the energy crises, one of the little facts

delivered to us was that the single biggest user of energy in the

State of California was the Central Valley Project which I guess it

makes a lot of sense. I hadn’t really thought of that.

270

If we are going to be—let’s say a scenario what if, if we do some

additional storage and it’s going to be moved. Dr. Gleick, for example, have you calculated the energy cost of the impact of moving

that water from storage?

Mr. GLEICK. Those numbers are available. I don’t have them in

my head but, as you point out, the largest single user of electricity

is, in fact, the pumping of the water over Tehachapis into Southern

California.

For that reason, in addition any gallon of water that you don’t

need to use south of the Tehachapis saves you not just water but

energy as well. That makes water use efficiency improvements

even that much more cost effective. If you include the energy savings from saving water, the combined savings are tremendously important.

Mr. NELSON. We have recently completed that analysis and to do

that we looked at the facility in the Central Valley that would generate the most water per acre-foot. Raising Shasta Dam would be

the project that would generate the most energy per acre-foot of

new storage.

People intuitively understand it when they think of new and

raised dams as generating energy but when you have to pump that

water over the coast range to get it here, over the Tehachapis to

get it to Southern California.

Certainly in the case of Southern California we have looked at

those numbers closely and the more storage we build in the Central Valley to deliver water to Southern California in particular,

the more energy they consume. These projects right now are energy

losers.

Ms. LOFGREN. It looks like Ms. Wells has—

Ms. WELLS. I would like to comment. I’m certainly not an expert

in power. I’m trying to stay up with it as it is but you have to remember the CVP is also a producer of power in excess of what it

needs often. We’re not at a point in Sites to know exactly how.

Certainly there is power needed to pump the water in as an offstream storage facility, but there is also the opportunity to create

power. Generally speaking it could almost be power neutral in

terms of what you put in it’s got to come out and you can generate

power so there is always that concept, too.

Ms. LOFGREN. It would be interesting. I don’t know what the answer is. I mean, they tell you in law school never ask the question

unless you know the answer but I don’t know the answer and I

would be interested in any of the analyses done.

Clearly, we live in the desert. It’s the Cadillac desert and we

have benefitted, or some would say not, but I wouldn’t redo what

Governor Brown did decades ago. We wouldn’t have an economy.

None of us would living here in these numbers. The question is

now what? I think this has been a very useful discussion in terms

of the policy choices that we face to maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy. I really appreciate the very thoughtful comments.

Mr. CALVERT. I also want to thank this panel. I think Congresswoman Lofgren is right. There is no one answer, though I would

say that H.R. 1985 helps. We obviously are going to conserve more.

271

We need to conserve more. I don’t think anyone in this room

doesn’t think we should conserve.

We need better farming practices. I think we’ve seen a lot of evidence of that in the last number of years. We are going to need

ground water storage. We are going to need off-stream storage. We

are going to need reclamation. We are going to need water transfers. Those are going to take place.

All of these things are going to take place or we’re not going to

meet demand. We know what happens when you don’t have enough

supply and you have too much demand. I mean, I learned that in

ECON 101 class back many years ago. We don’t want to face that

choice. As we move forward on this, we look forward to working

with everybody and everyone’s participation.

I’m happy to say that we have a number of endorsements of this

so far. The Association of California Water Agencies, the Bay Area

Council, California Business Properties Association, California

Business Round Table, California Chamber of Commerce,

California Manufacturers Technology Association, California State

Council of Labors, Conference of Operating Engineers, Central Valley Project Water Association, LA Chamber of Commerce, Mountain Counties Water Resources, Northern California Water Association. That’s just a portion of a number of endorsements along with

what you heard from California Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, and

others.

This is process. We are moving forward and hopefully we are a

successful process because I can assure you that we must get an

authorization bill or those dog gone appropriators won’t give us any

money.

With that, I appreciate you coming out. God bless. We’re

adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m. the meeting was adjourned.)

Æ