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

92–207 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–338

CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1097

TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO IMPLEMENT

THE CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

OCTOBER 30, 2003

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

KELLIE DONNELLY, Counsel 

PATTY BENEKE, Democratic Senior Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

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

Water District, Fresno, CA .................................................................................. 35

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California ............................................. 2

Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 5

Calvert, Hon. Ken, U.S. Representative from California ..................................... 9

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota ................................... 8

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California ......................................... 2

Gastelum, Ronald, CEO, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 

Los Angeles, CA ................................................................................................... 40

Graff, Thomas J., Regional Director, Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA ..... 30

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

Sacramento, CA .................................................................................................... 46

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona ............................................................ 7

McPeak, Sunne Wright, President and CEO, Bay Area Council, San Francisco, CA ................................................................................................................ 28

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 1

Raley, Bennett W., Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 12

Wright, Patrick, Director, California Bay-Delta Authority, Sacramento, CA ..... 25

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 59

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 79

(1)

CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I call to order this hearing of the Water 

and Power Subcommittee. Welcome, and good afternoon. Thank 

you all for coming. I certainly appreciate the interest in today’s 

hearing. 

Mark Twain, at one point in time, said, ‘‘Whiskey is for drinking, 

water is for fighting.’’ And I think certainly in California, in regard 

to this issue, and in many parts of the West, that statement is 

probably more than just a little bit accurate. 

Today, the Water and Power Subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act. This legislation was introduced by Senators Feinstein and Boxer. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and various Federal agency heads 

to implement the Calfed Program, a program that has been working to improve water management in California since its inception 

with the Bay-Delta Accord in December 1994. Both California Senators should be commended for their efforts in formulating this legislation, and their efforts to improve the very difficult water issues 

in your State. This bill authorizes $880 million for fiscal years 2004 through 

2007 for program-specific areas. Authorization for Federal participation in the Calfed Program expired in 2000; however, various 

program activities have continued to be funded under existing authorities. 

I’m looking forward to learning more about this legislation from 

today’s witnesses. In particular, I am interested in understanding 

the extent of the existing Federal authorities and whether additional authorization is necessary. I would also like to understand 

how the Calfed Program is progressing, in terms of water-supply 

reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and levy system 

integrity. And, finally, I would hope that we would learn how much 

funding has been expended pursuant to the Calfed Program to 

date, and how much funding is needed for its completion. 

2

Now, I know that there is a lot of interest in this hearing. We’ve 

received many requests from groups wishing to testify. I’d like to 

note that, under our committee rules, any interested party may 

submit testimony for the hearing record, which will remain open 

for an additional 2 weeks. 

The committee has already received written testimony from the 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, which I would like to enter into the hearing 

record. 

We have three panels this afternoon—a congressional panel, the 

administration, and a public-stakeholder panel—but before we 

move into the panel, I would like to recognize our committee members for opening statements at this time, in the order in which they 

arrived. 

Senator Feinstein. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

I am pleased today that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is 

holding a hearing on S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta Reauthorization Act, introduced 

by my colleague, Senator Feinstein. As you know, I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agency 

heads to participate in the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

For decades, water allocation in California was conducted through endless appeals, lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such battles were painful and they 

prevented us from finding real solutions to our state’s very real water problems. In 

1994, a new state-federal partnership program called CALFED promised a better 

way. Through a plan to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and environment, CALFED was committed to identifying a solution that all water users could 

share. 

Over the years, what has made CALFED work is that it employs a consensus approach that balances the needs of the various interests competing for California’s 

scarce water resources. This balance is most clearly articulated in the Record of Decision (ROD) that was agreed to on August 28, 2000 by the federal government and 

the State of California. The CALFED ROD outlines clearly the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Programs’ goals and repeatedly reiterates the need to move forward with these goals 

in a balanced manner. 

This legislation authorizes the federal agencies to undertake the actions and activities identified in the ROD. It is our intent that all activities are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the ROD. This legislation is not intended to 

authorize activities, such as major construction projects, that would otherwise require completion of feasibility studies, permits under section 404(a) of the Clean 

Water Act and other applicable laws, and project-specific authorizations. In addition, the legislation requires that federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program proceed in a way that is consistent with other laws. 

This legislation provides a carefully crafted, balanced approach for meeting water 

supply needs, improving water quality, and environmental restoration. Thus, the 

bill would protect the fragile Bay-Delta region, while addressing the entire state’s 

water needs in a comprehensive manner. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has played a vital role in meeting California’s 

water needs. This bill will ensure that continues.

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and thank you very much for holding this hearing. I also want to 

thank Chairman Domenici and ranking member Bingaman for 

granting my request to hold this hearing. And I want to welcome 

Congressman Ken Calvert, who’s been the leader in the House with 

3

the bill—while not quite like this bill, not that different from the 

bill, with no major differences that are irreconcilable that I can see. 

And I also want to thank Bennett Raley. I want to commend you 

for your leadership on the Quantification Settlement Agreement, 

which gradually weans California off of the Colorado River down 

to 4.4 million acre-feet over the next 15 years. Ron Gastelum, from 

the Metropolitan Water District, who is also here, and others, 

played a very critical role in these negotiations. I know it wasn’t 

easy. I want to thank you for your steadfastness in the four districts that were involved. 

I think this is really a big chip off of the shoulders of Colorado’s 

River States and their Senators, and I hope it helps us with Calfed. 

Because, if you think for a moment, you can’t remove 700,000 acrefeet of water from California without finding a way to gain other 

water to replace it. 

My view is that if we don’t pass a Calfed bill now, California will 

not have enough water in a decade or so. The electricity crisis is 

just a forerunner, in a minor way, to what will happen with respect 

to water. The last time we increased our water infrastructure was 

the mid-1960’s, when Governor Pat Brown built the California 

Water Project. And, at that time, we were 16 million people. Today, 

we’re 36 million people, and we’re going to be 50 million people 

within the next 15 to 20 years. So this program is not ‘‘too much, 

too soon.’’ It even could be ‘‘too little, too late.’’

The essence of Calfed—and I want to take a couple of minutes—

is creating a predictable environment and a cooperative framework 

for California’s communities to plan for their water supply and for 

protection of fish, salmon, fisheries, and the environment. There 

are three core principles enshrined in the bill that Senator Boxer 

and I have introduced: balance—the program goes together, it 

moves forward together; consistency with the record of decision; 

and a partnership between the State and Federal Government. 

California has many different water needs. Ecological restoration 

for the environment. Yesterday, I met with Westlands, today I met 

with the Hoopa Tribe, both of whom have concerns about the Trinity River. They need to come together. They need to settle these 

concerns. Recycling, desalination, water quality, and conveyance for 

cities, and storage, both ground water and surface, for our farms 

and our people. California is prone to drought, so it makes sense 

to store water taken from wet years for use in dry years. 

A Calfed bill must evenhandedly provide for all these interests 

so Californians, all of them, can rally around it. That’s why the bill 

we have introduced explicitly requires balanced implementation. 

And I must tell you—and I must thank Senator Kyl, of Arizona. I 

know he’s relieved we’re off the Colorado River, or going off the 

Colorado River, but he has really done yeoman service in helping 

with this bill, and I’m very, very grateful for that help. 

Our bill respects that Calfed has a history, and it respects the 

past agreements that Californians have made. 

I want to just quickly go a little bit into the history. When I came 

here, in 1993, there were suits all over the place. And I thought, 

I’m going to call in the stakeholders, and I’m going to call in the 

Secretary of the Interior, I’m going to see if there’s any way people 

can get out of the courtroom and come around the table and begin 

4

to talk about water without the emotion, but in a very practical solution-oriented manner. So we held a number of meetings, and that 

kind of began a process which became known as Calfed, whereby, 

at one point, I think there were 17 different stakeholder groups sitting down and meeting. 

The Bay-Delta Accords were negotiated in 1994. And then, in 

2000, the record of decision was carefully negotiated by all 

groups—environmentalists, urbans, agriculture—was signed by the 

Secretary of the Interior, and was signed by the Governor of California. 

This record of decision sets forth specific commitments to enter 

into a process which will result in the balanced implementation of 

the water interests of all California. 

My bill adopts the record of decision as a framework for Calfed’s 

program components. This is compromise language. It was negotiated at great length, and we need to keep its recognition that the 

record of—the recognition that the record of decision is our roadmap. Patrick Wright is here from California, along with many others who will be introduced, and they’ve done a terrific job. 

Finally, a Calfed bill needs to create a governance structure so 

that the Federal Government will participate actively with the 

State in making important decisions. One water project is federal, 

one water project is State. It makes sense. So we need a governance structure to ensure an active Federal role in the partnership. 

So, I urge the administration and the House to support a bill 

that increases our water supply, that also protects our environment 

by proceeding in a balanced fashion. Let me quickly just brief the 

elements of the bill. 

The Chairman mentioned its $880 million authorization over 4 

years. The Federal cost share is limited only to one third. That’s 

far below what most water bills have. This bill includes $102 million for planning and feasibility studies, for water storage, an additional $77 million for conveyance, $100 million for ecological restoration. This means improving fish passages, restoring streams, 

rivers, habitats, and water quality. The evidence shows that 

Calfed’s ecological restoration is working well to date. 

About $400 million has been spent to improve fish passages, restore wetlands, and otherwise improve ecological restoration since 

the 1990’s. The results are the best part, and no one can debunk 

it, fish populations are improving. We aren’t all the way there yet, 

but we’ve made real progress. $153 million for water conservation, 

recycling, $84 million for desalination and water cycling projects, 

programs to improve water quality for drinking, $95 million for 

grants to local California communities to develop plans and 

projects, and $50 million for watershed planning and assistance. 

We have projects for levy stability, with $70 million, ensuring 

Calfed has strong supporting science; and $50 million and $25 million for program management, oversight, and coordination. And, finally, $75 million for the environmental water account, which purchases available water for environmental and other purposes. 

Now, last Congress, I introduced a Calfed bill in November 2001, 

and I worked really hard with members of this committee to get 

the bill favorably reported out of committee by a vote of 18-5. I 

kept on working to address members’ concerns, even after the bill 

5

was reported. Senator Kyl helped me, on his side, convening meetings, asking for concerns, vetting the bill. 

I’ll tell you what we learned. First, some Senators were afraid 

that Calfed was going to require more than its fair share of the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget. I think, Senator Burns, you were one 

of those. We cut the authorization level twice, ultimately to $880 

million, to meet these concerns. We also limited the Federal cost 

share. 

A number of Republican Senators were concerned that environmental projects not needing authorization would sail smoothly 

ahead, while storage projects lacking congressional approval would 

languish. To meet this concern, we require in the bill specific language for balanced implementation of the program. All aspects 

have to proceed in a balanced way. 

Other Senators were concerned that they had no good handle on 

the Federal funding on the numerous different agencies involved in 

Calfed. We met this concern by requiring OMB to prepare a crosscut budget showing the Federal funding of each of the different 

agencies. There was concern, at the Bureau of Reclamation, that 

we would short the projects for other States. We also prepared a 

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

would get. That’s all there. 

These changes improved the Calfed bill, and a simplified short 

authorization passed the Senate at the very last minute, at the 

very last half hour of the session. We could not, however, get it 

passed in the House of Representatives. With the support of Representative Calvert, with Representative Pombo, I hope and expect 

we will achieve a different result. 

And I had the opportunity, Madam Chairman, to talk a bit to the 

Governor-elect of California about this. And I’d like to quickly read 

in the record a letter from him. And it’s, ‘‘Dear Senator Feinstein, 

As the Governor-elect, I’d like to express my strong support for advancing Federal legislation on the Calfed Bay-Delta Program. I 

strongly urge Congress to reauthorize the Federal contribution to 

Calfed in order to encourage the participating Federal agencies to 

fully engage in a partnership with the State of California and the 

stakeholders of the Calfed Program. I share your belief that Calfed 

can provide a long-term comprehensive plan to address challenges 

in the Bay-Delta region by balancing water-resource management 

issues, including supply, quality, and ecosystem restoration. I, 

therefore, support the efforts that you, Congressman Calvert, and 

the entire California congressional delegation are taking to help 

California implement this important program.’’

I believe this is his first letter to us, and, as such, I hope it indicates the importance of this Calfed Program to our State. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Burns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. And I want to congratulate Senator Feinstein. Nobody has devoted more hours to this 

issue. And let me say that I sincerely appreciate what they’re tryVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
6

ing to do in California, and I’m pretty supportive of what they’re 

trying to do. We voiced——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you eliminate the ‘‘pretty’’? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURNS. Huh? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you eliminate the ‘‘pretty’’ and just be 

supportive? 

Senator BURNS. Um. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’m teasing. 

Senator BURNS. I thought you ladies liked the word ‘‘pretty.’’ 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well——

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURNS. And I guess we still have the—almost the same 

concerns, but I appreciate the movement that Senator Feinstein 

has made with regard to the Calfed issue. Nobody wants to argue 

that California does not need more water at the south end of the 

State. I’m deeply concerned about and saddened by what California 

is going through out there right now with the fires and everything, 

but that has nothing to do with this. 

I said, from the get-go, that Calfed was starting, kind of, on the 

wrong end of their problem. They’ve got to make some more water. 

They’ve got to come to the idea that we should expand our ability 

to store water in the existing facilities, and also maybe look at new 

facilities. I am supportive of that because of population growth, of 

the people-pressure on water, and also the ability to do some things 

on the environmental side, without the cost being very, very heavy 

on the people-use side. 

And I also want to associate myself with the words of Senator 

Feinstein, when Senator Kyl probably has been one of the key players in these negotiations, understanding the situation, and also understanding the law, as he does. The Senate is very, very appreciative of his talent. 

But I went through the 1991 water settlement with California. 

I didn’t sign the conference report then, because it was unfair to, 

not only California, but also because California played it pretty 

loose on who controls the water, and I am very much of an opponent of the Federal Government, Washington, D.C., controlling any 

water, because I don’t want to get into a situation where they dictate here what water will be used for. And we fall on our saber 

about those things. Whiskey’s for drinking, water’s for fighting, in 

the West. 

So I want to congratulate Senator Feinstein because she has 

come a long way. There are now conditions in here to enlarge and 

to enhance water storage and to possibly create more water. And 

while we might not create any more water, we’re sure going to hold 

it, and for the right reason. And not only for the Delta, but also 

for agriculture. Because I come to this with one single thing in my 

mind, and Senator Feinstein knows what it is, and that is, I fight 

awfully hard to protect the agricultural base, and I will continue 

to do that. 

So I look forward to working on this piece of legislation. I helped 

Senator Feinstein vote it out of committee last time, and told her 

that we could work on it. And her word was good, and we have 

been working on it. And I will continue to do that in good faith. 

7

And I’m particularly appreciative of the work that she’s done and 

the miles that she has come on this piece of legislation. 

And I thank the Chair, and I’d ask that my official statement be 

made a part of the record. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. And your statement will be included as part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

First of all, I would like to thank Senator Murkowski for holding this hearing, 

and Senator Feinstein for all her hard work on this issue. Water in California, as 

with the entire West, is a complicated and difficult issue.I would like to welcome 

the witnesses today, particularly Tom Birmingham from Westlands Water District. 

The importance of having an agricultural interest at the table cannot be stressed 

enough. 

There are people who wonder why I care so deeply about the California farmers, 

but I have been close to this issue since the early 90’s when the Senate passed the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act. I never did sign the conference report, 

partly because the legislation ‘‘reallocated’’ 800,000 acre/feet of water away from 

South of the Delta farmers. This bill seeks to get some of that water back, and I 

appreciate that effort. To me, that is one of the key issues this legislation needs to 

address. 

Having been involved with the CalFed legislation for several years now, I can say 

with confidence that S. 1097 is an improvement over previous versions. I appreciate 

that the authorization has been trimmed to $880 million over 5 years, and that 

there are efforts to make sure that construction of new water storage projects progresses alongside other water conservation and ecosystem projects. This balance is 

very important to me, because water storage is crucial to meeting the growing needs 

of any growing state. The fact that the federal cost-share is limited to one-third of 

project costs is also an improvement. 

For all its improvements, I am not ready to endorse this bill just yet. Unanswered 

questions remain, and maybe we can answer some of those questions in today’s 

hearing. I think we need to make sure we are authorizing activities that are necessary to achieve the goals of better meeting the goals of the CalFed agreement. The 

follows a ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ model, and while that sounds good I am not sure what 

it means. The American taxpayer will be paying for 1/3 of these activities, and I 

am not clear on how the American taxpayer is a beneficiary. 

The federal government funds worthy projects in every state in the nation, and 

CalFed projects may indeed be included in that list. I just want to make sure we 

know what we’re buying and that we can afford it. I look forward to continuing to 

work with Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues to make sure we are doing 

the right thing for all Californians and for all Americans.

MURKOWSKI. Senator Kyl. 

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

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Madam 

Chairman, I’ll just be very brief, but I want the people who have 

traveled a long way to be here to appreciate some things. I think 

probably most of you do. 

When Senator Burns talked about the way that Senator Feinstein has worked this legislation, he did not overstate the case; he 

understated it. She is the best in the Senate at buttonholing, lobbying, calling meetings, inundating you with information, more 

than you want, and using every technique known to man or woman 

to get people to see the light. And she has just worked extraordinarily hard on this. 

There are two other things that you all need to know—and, by 

the way, the same thing goes for Ken Calvert, but he’s not getting 

the accolades here—but Senator Burns just said that Senator FeinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
8

stein’s word is good, and that probably is the best thing that you 

all have going for you. 

Because this is a project that, in one form or another, and, I 

think, pretty close to the form that it’s been introduced, needs to 

happen. And it’s going to be very hard, because you come along at 

a time when we’ve got this big budget deficit, and there were some 

other problems last year, and so it’s a hard thing—even though the 

project has a great deal of merit, it’s a hard thing to get done. And 

if you were working with somebody here who was not trusted by 

their colleagues, it would be very difficult. You have just the opposite here. 

When Senator Feinstein sat down with me—we’ve had the same 

thing in Arizona, these difficult negotiations with lawsuits and all 

of the rest of it, and you finally have to sit down and try to negotiate them out. And when you’re all done the last thing you want 

is to bring it back to Washington and have everybody start to undermine what you did or to nitpick it to death. 

I fully appreciate that phenomenon and all the work that you all 

put into this. But when Senator Feinstein said, ‘‘Here’s what we’ve 

done,’’ I knew what the reaction of some colleagues would be, and 

I suggested to Senator Feinstein that she make several changes. 

She did. I know some of those were kind of hard for some of you 

to swallow. But she was extraordinarily constructive in putting this 

thing together in a way that I could defend it, as a Senator from 

another State, and I’m happy to do so, and happy to do it again. 

So I will continue to work, to the extent that I can, with Senator 

Feinstein. And I guess what I want you folks in California to know 

is, please don’t be disappointed. I know. I’ve been through the same 

thing. I’ve got a thing going right now myself here that we’re going 

to have a long time to get through. It’s very frustrating, it’s very 

time consuming. The process here can be maddening. Don’t give 

up. Keep of good cheer. Be constructive. Keep educating us. That’s 

what we need. And be understanding of the financial issues, and 

we’ll find a way to work around all these problems. 

Also, Bennett Raley and all the folks from the Department of the 

Interior, have been enormously helpful here, too. So there are a lot 

of good people of goodwill working on this. It’s hard. But with good, 

constructive work, we can try to get this thing through. 

And, Senator Feinstein, I commend you, and, Madam Chairman, 

commend you for holding this hearing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Dorgan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

Has Congressman Calvert testified yet? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. He has not. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We’re still getting through our openings. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, I have a major keynote address here 

that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DORGAN. Let me—you know, I would second all that my 

colleagues have said about Senator Feinstein. She’s worked tireVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
9

lessly on this issue, and I’m happy to help her and work with her. 

I know this is important to California. 

And, you know, I would say that Senator Kyl made a very important point. When you’re dealing with water policy, you have to 

have some patience. I mean, these are difficult projects that require 

tireless devotion and dedication, and this has proven to be the case 

with this project. But Senator Feinstein has never given up, and 

so I think she has the ability to work with the members of this 

committee in a way to get a satisfactory result. I’m really happy 

to work with her. I think she makes a complete and effective presentation, and has done the groundwork that’s necessary to get legislation through. 

Senator Feinstein, thank you for your work. And I, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, look forward to working with 

you to see if we can’t get the results we need. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Byron. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

And, with that, let’s turn to Congressman Calvert. Mr. Calvert 

is the sponsor of H.R. 2828, which is the Calfed legislation now 

moving through the House. So we welcome you to the Committee. 

Thank you for your patience this afternoon as we have made our 

opening comments. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I appreciate you having me here, 

Madam Chairman. And thank you, Senator Dorgan and Senator 

Kyl, Senator Burns, a good friend, Senator Feinstein, as I share my 

thoughts on California water and the future of all Californians. I 

certainly appreciate your having this hearing. 

And I know that all of our thoughts and prayers are with the 

people in southern California today who are going through a difficult time. It seems that we have a number of problems in California. A lack of energy and certainly these wildfires aren’t helpful. 

And water is a catastrophe waiting to happen in California, as Senator Feinstein well knows in the hard work that she has shown to 

resolve California’s water issues. But we’re running out of time. So 

I know that patience is important, but this is a very difficult problem. 

I certainly want to share my appreciation of Senator Feinstein’s 

valiant strides in introducing her Calfed bill and her efforts to find 

balanced solutions. As you’re aware, Senator, I based the structure 

of my bill, H.R. 2828, on the purposes and intent of your bill. I believe your efforts today will only strengthen the resolve to pass a 

Calfed bill this session. 

I’ve been working closely with my subcommittee colleagues and 

stakeholders, and conducted field hearings in California and hearings here in Washington, to gain an understanding of what is right 

for California water. 

What I’ve heard, across the board, is that we need storage, as 

Senator Burns points out, we need efficient conveyance, we need 

improved water quality, we need more agency accountability, and 

we need strong communication and coordination. Your efforts here 

10

today provide all members the opportunity to see what is working 

and what minor improvements to the California water system are 

needed to assure that more than 35 million people continue to have 

an adequate and a safe water supply. As Senator Feinstein points 

out, that population continues to increase. 

I also believe that your bill provides other water managers and 

other States and river basins an opportunity to see a system that 

is working and, with our legislation, will be a balance to all water 

users. 

Our bills are close. I’m confident that the differences can be resolved. I commit to work with you, Senator, and the distinguished 

members of this committee and the subcommittee I chair, to work 

out what few differences we do have so we can get the needed Federal authorization that’s been so lacking in the last decade. 

You know, in a last point, a lot of the hard work that Bennett 

Raley and certainly others have put into this, the Quantification 

Settlement Agreement has been resolved. That’s good news. Now 

the hard work begins. We have a few years, really, to wean ourselves from the Colorado River. And without Calfed, we can’t do it. 

We must have this. 

Obviously, desalinization is an important issue, and there are 

other issues, but unless we can move water from the north to the 

south in the good times, we’re not going to be able to meet the 

goals that we must meet. And, as you all know, especially from Arizona and Nevada and other States, water is a fungible commodity, 

and the lack of water has a direct cost on price, and price is certainly something that’s very important to farmers, as you know, 

Senator Burns. And so as the scarcity of water increases, the price 

of water increases with it. 

So, with that, again, I’m thankful for having this opportunity to 

be here. And if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer 

them, though they just called a vote and I have to get back over 

to the House. 

So thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we don’t want to keep you from your 

vote. Let me just ask you very quickly, looking into your crystal 

ball, what do you figure the prospect of Calfed legislation passing 

the House is? 

Mr. CALVERT. I’m very confident we will pass a bill out of committee soon—soon being when we come back into session—and get 

a bill on the floor. We came very close last session, and I feel confident that we can get a bill passed. But, you know, it’s—this catastrophe that’s happened in California the last few days shows that 

we cannot put off problems. We have to deal with them early on 

and be proactive in these types of things, and especially water. You 

can’t put off water problems, because when it’s upon you, you can’t 

solve it overnight. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Are there questions for Congressman Calvert? 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If I may, I’d like to thank him. I happened 

to agree with what he said. I believe that if we each get a bill 

through our respective houses, we’ll be able to work out any differences that exist in conference and get the job done in a way that 

11

I think everybody would be proud. There are controversies. We’ve 

worked to solve them. So I would be very optimistic, and I want 

to thank you very much, Ken, for coming over today. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, thank you Senator. I appreciate it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. I look forward to working with you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Anything from any other committee members? If not, thank you 

for your time this afternoon, Congressman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate it. 

I just wanted to note for the record, Senator Domenici was planning on attending the hearing today, but was called away to an Energy and Water Appropriations conference meeting. The chairman 

has asked that his prepared statements be included in the record. 

But he did want to have me pass on to you, Senator Feinstein, his 

commendation for all the hard work that you have been doing on 

this issue and his desire to continue to work with you as we move 

forward. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

Madam Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today on S. 1097, the 

CalFed Bay-Delta authorization legislation. 

I would like to commend my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her efforts to deal 

with these critical water issues in California. She has been persistent in bringing 

water management issues to the front of the national agenda. I would also like to 

thank Senator Feinstein for her willingness to engage in bi-partisan efforts to carry 

forward the business of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

The significant water issues highlighted by this CALFED legislation are not 

unique to California. For example, we have recently held a hearing on legislation 

addressing major water issues in Arizona. Other members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have equally pressing water resources issues. 

My state, New Mexico, struggled through a disastrous summer requiring Herculean efforts by Federal, State and every other water management group. We have 

now reduced our storage to historic lows and we face potentially traumatic choices 

this coming year. If anything, New Mexico has fewer resources and is in worse 

shape than California. 

For these reasons, I am developing legislation to address the breadth of water 

issues faced by my state. For lack of a better name, I have been referring to this 

legislation as New Mexico FED. 

I look forward to working to resolve the remaining issues on S. 1097, and equally 

important, I took forward to working with Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues on the Committee to address the water issues that face New Mexico and 

the rest of the Western U.S. 

Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for conducting this hearing today. 

APPENDAGE

Additionally, I feel that CALFED is increasingly significant in light of the recent 

historic agreement among the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Colorado Basin 

States and in particular, the users of Colorado River water in California in an effort 

to reduce California’s dependence on Colorado River Water. 

The CalFed program was first initiated almost 10 years ago with the signing of 

the Bay-Delta accord in 1994. The parties who have worked long and hard in developing and managing the highly integrated and interdependent projects of the 

CalFed program should be commended. Every Western state, if it has not already 

done so, should pay close attention and where possible, learn from California’s experience in this effort. 

12

The collaborative process leading to the Bay-Delta Record of Decision and this legislation sets the stage for the long-term Federal-State relationship in California and 

establishes a possible formula for other Western states. 

However, I have several concerns, which I hope will be addressed in part at this 

hearing and which may require that I travel to California to see first hand the programs and facilities represented by this legislation. 

While the list of projects and programs addressed in this legislation are extensive, 

S. 1097 does not solve ALL of California’s water resources issues. Since the Committee announced this hearing, I have met with multiple organizations from California who have sought my support for CalFed. My staff and I have also met with 

other California-based groups who feel their projects should receive equal attention 

to those included in CalFed. Notably, the current CalFed legislation represents only 

four years of the Federal-State partnership. Thus, it is important, that the Committee understand what California water issues are resolved by the CalFed legislation and what additional authorization requests the Committee should anticipate for 

other California water projects. 

A major question on S. 1097 is whether new authorities are needed to implement 

the Federal-State relationship or whether existing authorities are sufficient. This is 

a key issue in developing Western water policy. I hope that today’s hearing and subsequent discussions will help increase my understanding of the Federal government’s existing authorities to address complex water issues and lay a foundation for 

assessing the right course of action on water issues for other states, like New Mexico. 

As has been discussed before, every state in the West is facing the same water 

trauma. Recently, this committee conducted a hearing on water settlements and 

other projects in Arizona. As many of you know, I am currently in the process of 

developing broad-reaching water legislation for New Mexico. Thus, the policy and 

other implications of the CalFed legislation must be viewed in light of these broader 

Western needs. 

Finally, I want to commend my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for 

her hard work on S. 1097. Again, thank you Madam Chairman for taking on these 

weighty issues.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let’s go to panel No. 2. I’d like to now welcome Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley, who is testifying on behalf 

of the Administration. 

Mr. Raley, thank you for joining us this afternoon. 

STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. RALEY. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to address this extraordinarily important issue for the Department of the Interior and, in fact, the 

United States. 

The resources at issue in the State of California are of national 

importance. It’s a nationally important economy, nationally important environmental and other resources. And like the other States, 

we believe that it is only with the relentless attention and support 

of all of the people here in this body, as well as the administration, 

that we’ll enable people out on the ground, at the State and local 

level, to find the tools to resolve what will otherwise be an 

unending series of catastrophes. 

Senator Feinstein spoke, in her opening remarks, of finding this 

a—if I could use the word—a morass of litigation. And, if I may, 

I can say it no more plainly than that this administration believes 

that solutions like Calfed are absolutely critical to avoiding 

unending series of catastrophes. In fact, you can look at Secretary 

Norton’s Water 2025 Initiative, which the Secretary announced this 

spring and completed regional hearings on throughout the West 

this summer, over 3,000 people attended these hearings in the 

West to talk about common-sense solutions to avoiding, or at least 

13

minimizing, conflict over water. We drew heavily upon Calfed, and 

the successes and failures in Calfed, in terms of it being an experiment in size and in its scale, as the Secretary developed Water 

2025. 

We do not want to deal with a future that does not include a 

Calfed authorization. And I will be blunt, there is virtually nothing 

that I can disagree with in Senator Feinstein’s opening remarks, 

with the minor exception that we may have different perspectives 

on the amount of money that is currently available at this time 

within the President’s budget. That’s something that I suspect will 

be discussed within this body, and the executive branch will make 

its preferences known. But the goals, the objectives, and the relentless search for resolution of tough issues that Senator Feinstein 

spoke of, we agree with much of what she and all of you have done 

together. 

I also want to thank, on behalf of the Secretary, Senator Feinstein for noting the success of the Secretary, the four water-management agencies, and the seven States on the Colorado River. And 

we know that that could not have occurred without the support of 

members of this subcommittee in searching for a long-term durable 

solution. 

There is very much a connection between the long-term success, 

with respect to the California plan for the Colorado River, and 

Calfed. As Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, and, I 

believe, all observed, in one way or another, that if California is to 

meet its needs from a water-use standpoint, from an environmental 

standpoint, from a recreational standpoint, for water as its population grows, we must have Calfed, because the only other alternative will be the decimation of agricultural communities that we 

do not believe should bear disproportionate burdens within California as it struggles to meet the challenges of a population that 

I saw the other day, L.A. growing something like 800 people per 

day. 

And so, without reservation, we’re supportive of the concepts of 

Calfed. We believe that, with the exception of what I consider to 

be fairly technical matters that I’ve noted in my opening statement—which, Madam Chairman, I’d like to request be submitted 

for the record—that success is attainable. And if I can borrow a 

term that we used at some risk in the Colorado River negotiations, 

I do believe that we are achingly close. With the leadership of the 

Senators of this subcommittee, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Pombo, in the 

House, we are achingly close to concluding this chapter in the long 

story of enabling California to meet the needs of its people and its 

resources. 

With that, Madam Chairman, I’d like to just refer to my written 

statement and leave whatever time may be available for questions 

from the Senators. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, and your written comments 

will be included as part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]

14

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the proposed bill authorizing the Secretary of the 

Interior to implement the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. S. 1097 provides authorization for the Secretary of the Interior and the heads of the participating Federal 

agencies to carry out implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program as set 

forth in the Record of Decision. Furthermore, S. 1097 would authorize funding, as 

well as governance and management authorities for a comprehensive, balanced, and 

timely water management program for California. 

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Committee for your continued support and commitment to making significant progress with the CALFED Program. I also appreciate the concerns demonstrated by this Committee that progress 

be made and your efforts in developing the bill being considered here before us 

today. Your continued willingness to work with the Administration and Department 

on this matter is of real and continuing importance to us. The current bill addresses 

many of the concerns raised in previous testimony, and we appreciate the approach 

the Senate is taking to authorize a clean CALFED bill. While we appreciate the effort and commitment that has gone into this bill, this testimony highlights several 

outstanding concerns that will need to be addressed for the Administration to support this legislation. 

OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS ON CALIFORNIA WATER ISSUES

Before addressing S. 1097, I would like to briefly focus on several key California 

water issues and provide you with an overview of CALFED accomplishments to 

date. Virtually every Western state has issues of concern and controversy demanding our collective attention. The Department of the Interior has recently initiated 

Water 2025 which is a commitment to work with states, tribes, local governments, 

and the public, within existing resources, to address the realities of water supply 

challenges in the West. Water 2025 recognizes crisis management is not an effective 

solution for addressing long-term systemic water supply problems. This effort is intended to focus sustained attention on measures that local communities can be put 

in place to proactively anticipate and mitigate the water conflicts we will otherwise 

inevitably experience, even in non-drought years. In some areas of the West, communities are already implementing water banks, voluntary transfers between existing users, and water conservation measures to address potential water supply crises 

in advance. 

COLORADO RIVER WATER DELIVERY AGREEMENT

A prime example of crisis prevention is the recent conclusion of decades of controversy with the signing of the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement. On October 16, 2003, Secretary Norton was joined at Hoover Dam by representatives of the 

seven Colorado River Basin States and the four California water agencies (Imperial 

Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, the Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California and the San Diego County Water Authority), to celebrate this 

historic agreement that allows for the largest ‘‘ag to urban’’ transfer in the West. 

This agreement, forged under the Secretary’s leadership resolves important issues 

that were of significant concern to many in the West and in Congress. 

By executing this pact, California will keep its 1929 promise to limit its use of 

Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre-feet by adopting specific, incremental steps 

to gradually reduce its use over the next 14 years. This Agreement includes measures that provide water for San Diego and its other growing cities in the southern 

half of the state, which are dependent on additional water conservation within California’s farming communities. Under recently enacted state legislation, California 

will develop strategies to address the environmental concerns of the Salton Sea. 

The California water management agencies have agreed among themselves as to 

how California’s 4.4 million acre-feet will be allocated within the state. Reaching 

this agreement benefits not only California, but also the seven states in the Colorado River Basin, allowing them to protect their authorized allocations and meet 

their future water needs. 

The key elements of the deal are:

1. Caps previously unquantified water entitlement of the Imperial Irrigation 

District (IID) and Coachella Valley Water District. 

15

2. Provides for the conservation and transfer of up to 277,700 acre-feet from 

IID to the San Diego County Water Authority. 

3. Resolves longstanding disputes over the beneficial use of Colorado River 

water. 

4. Reinstates the availability of Colorado River surplus water for California 

and Nevada urban water users, providing for a 14 year gradual reduction to 

California’s allocated share of Colorado River water (a reduction from 5.2 to 4.4 

million acre-feet). 

5. Provides water and wheeling arrangements for settlement of the San Luis 

Rey River Indian Tribes.

This is a historic Agreement that settles longstanding disputes regarding the allocation of Colorado River water within California that have been in dispute since 

1931. This Agreement provides several immediate and long-term benefits to the 

beneficiaries of the Colorado River, such as: 

1. The fundamental principal of the Law of the Colorado River is upheld in this 

Agreement: Legal allocations to each state must be respected and enforced. In the 

past commentators and others within the Basin have suggested that transfers of additional water from the Upper Basin’s allocation to California would be the best approach to resolve problems associated with California’s overuse of the River. That 

approach would have been inconsistent with the basic structure and the allocations 

to each basin as provided in the Colorado River Compact of 1922. The Department 

does not believe that undermining the certainty of the allocations established over 

the past century would solve problems within the Basin; rather, such an approach 

would lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty and instability for all water users 

within the Basin. As a recent editorial in Utah stated: ‘‘By firming up the waterrights issue, California will have to adhere to its fair share of water from the Colorado River.’’

2. Through this Agreement, California has taken concrete steps to honor the commitment its legislature made in 1929 to live within an allocation of 4.4 MAF from 

the Colorado River. As a result, reinstatement of the Interim Surplus Guidelines, 

will once again allow California to have a grace period to reduce its use to 4.4 MAF. 

This will allow California to better plan and implement water conservation activities 

in a manner that avoids adverse impacts to its economy. 

3. Reduction in water use by California directly reduces demand on water stored 

in Colorado River reservoirs thereby reducing the risk of future shortages on the 

River. Arizona, with the most junior priority in the lower Basin, is particularly at 

risk of future shortages, and we are currently experiencing historic drought in the 

Basin. 

4. This Agreement is a resounding endorsement of the role of the Basin States 

to collectively fashion new approaches to solve issues within the Basin. The success 

of this Agreement builds on the Seven Basin States’ consensus plan that was ultimately adopted by the Department as the Interim Surplus Guidelines. Secretary 

Norton chose to live by, and enforce, the deadlines that were agreed to by all seven 

Basin States. This Agreement honors and respects the agreements and obligations 

among the states that were incorporated in the Interim Surplus Guidelines. 

5. Lastly, bringing Southern California’s water use into alignment with its allocation from the Colorado will also help reduce pressures on supplies from Northern 

California. As we saw earlier this year, the reduction in available Colorado River 

supplies to MWD lead to additional transfers from Northern California. The agreements reached on quantification of agricultural allocations in the Colorado River 

Water Delivery Agreement will provide a framework for additional transfers in the 

future. 

President Bush summarized these benefits in his statement of October 16: ‘‘this 

Agreement allows the Colorado River to meet emerging water needs and provides 

certainty for the people of the Basin States.’’

CALFED

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is also an example of crisis prevention. The 

CALFED Program is a response to the water management and ecosystem problems 

that came so clearly into focus in the drought of 1987 to 1992 experienced within 

the Bay-Delta system. Furthermore, the historic and ongoing conflicts between 

water management for supply and fishery protection have given rise to the urgency 

of the CALFED Program. For more than 7 years the collaborative State-Federal 

CALFED Program has been searching for the equilibrium among the Delta’s complex problems and stakeholders with divergent interests. 

Since Secretary Norton last appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July 2001 on the CALFED Program, much has been achieved 

16

in California water issues through the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program. I have attached to my statement a description of the accomplishments the 

program has achieved in years one through three. A collective investment of approximately $1.925 billion has been made in Years 1 through 3 from numerous Federal, state and local funding sources which has attributed to a vast array of project 

accomplishments in the program areas of water supply reliability, drinking water 

quality, levees, ecosystem restoration, watershed, science and oversight and coordination. Of the $1.925 billion, $1,204 million was state funding, $491 million was 

local funding and $230 million was Federal funding. The Federal investment for all 

directly related and overlapping programs and projects that contribute to achieving 

the CALFED ROD objectives within and overlapping the geographic solution area 

is a total of $600 million. 

RECENT CALFED DEVELOPMENTS

State Established California Bay-Delta Authority 

The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) was established by State legislation 

enacted in 2002 to provide a permanent State governance structure for the collaborative State-Federal effort that began in 1994. Pursuant to that legislation which 

was effective January 1, 2003, the CBDA formally assumed responsibility for overseeing State implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The legislation 

calls for the CBDA to sunset on January 1, 2006, unless Federal legislation has 

been enacted authorizing the participation of appropriate Federal agencies in the 

CBDA. Currently Federal agencies are participating with the CBDA and have engaged with their State CALFED partner agencies in the first two meetings. 

Interior and other Federal agencies involved with CALFED are discussing among 

themselves and with CBDA how our interaction with this new entity will evolve. 

As this is a unique intergovernmental arrangement, there are no prototypes to examine and from which to learn. We are proceeding cautiously in our examination 

of the many legal and institutional issues that have been identified. 

Renewed Agreements 

The California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee Charter was renewed in August under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The renewal of the Charter allows 

the Committee to continue to provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of California, and the 24 Federal and State CALFED cooperating 

agencies on Program implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Our participation under the MOU has advanced the Program’s implementation through the 

coordinated planning, scheduling, and budgeting for programs and projects. 

Establishment of D.C. Level Federal-Agency Coordination Working Group 

The Department of the Interior as the lead Federal Agency for CALFED Program 

implementation has established a Washington-Level Working Group consisting of a 

representative liaison from each of the 11 Federal participating agencies. This group 

will meet on a regular basis to facilitate coordinated support at the Washington 

level for each of the participating agencies. The group will focus on providing the 

higher level support and coordination needed by the 11 Federal agencies for Program implementation. 

Napa Proposition 

The Napa Proposition is a process to develop feasible plans to implement key actions contained in the CALFED ROD. The primary objective of the initial Napa discussions was to develop a proposal for the integration of the State Water Project 

(SWP) and the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in a manner that is consistent 

with the spirit and intent of the CALFED ROD. The proposition was developed during meetings that were a continuation of an ongoing relationship between the 

project agencies and their contractors to ensure better coordination of the day-today operations of both projects. 

The proposition is expected to increase moderately supplies for both projects. By 

better managing risk, it will allow higher allocations earlier in the year, increasing 

certainty for both CVP and SWP contractors. Most importantly, the proposition sets 

the stage for implementation of key CALFED programs, including increasing pumping capacity at the SWP Banks Pumping Plant to 8,500 cfs and continuation of the 

Environmental Water Account. It also recognizes the fundamental CALFED objective of improving Delta water quality. 

I would emphasize that the Napa Proposition is only a recommendation at this 

time and that no final decisions have been made. This recommendation will be considered through a more formal decision-making process described in the CALFED 

ROD, including various stakeholders and public review activities. 

17

Integration of Water Planning—CA Water Plan Update, Water 2025 and Bay-Delta 

Program 

The State has just issued a Draft Update of the California Water Plan which proposes a set of water resource actions to meet future water needs. One central theme 

that is consistent across the Water Plan, Water 2025, and the Bay-Delta Program 

is the need to pursue regional and local water development as a critical element to 

help determine priorities and demand. All three programs call for coordinated and 

integrated planning for determining future projects, approaches, or strategies for addressing future water needs. With respect to Water 2025, Secretary Norton has stated that the CALFED Program is a perfect example of how agencies and stakeholders can effectively work together towards a common goal. 

Re-evaluation of Program Budgets & Targets 

Since the signing the Bay-Delta Programmatic ROD in 2000, financial conditions 

have changed, and the implementing Federal and State agencies, as well as BayDelta Public Advisory Committee and the CBDA, have concluded that it is time to 

reassess and develop a strategic plan for the near-term implementation of the Program. The CBDA recently directed its staff to reassess the Program which will include a review of the targets and budgets necessary to meet Program goals specified 

in the ROD. The reassessment will make recommendations on replacing original 

monetary targets with performance-oriented targets as they are developed. Careful 

consideration will also be given to Program implementation that can be fully funded 

in the current fiscal climate; program implementation must be firmly based upon 

realistic expectations regarding actual appropriations. Failure to develop affordable 

CALFED Program components may jeopardize the progress of a balanced CALFED 

Program. 

A CALFED Finance Plan is being developed to enable the Program to continue 

implementation in a balanced manner. The Draft Finance Options Report will develop finance options for each of the CALFED Program elements based on an evaluation of benefits, beneficiaries, and costs. A Final Finance Options Report will propose a final set of finance options, including the institutional structure to implement 

a finance plan. An Independent Review Panel (8 nationally recognized experts) has 

been established to review and comment on each of these reports. 

Let me now turn to the legislation before us. In order to support the Federal component of the reevaluated Program, it is important that appropriate legislation be 

enacted to authorize Federal Government participation. 

FEINSTEIN LEGISLATION

This legislation represents a comprehensive approach to water issues in California. The bill proposes the commitments made in the 2000 Record of Decision as 

the road map for implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and respects 

past agreements Californians have made by representing compromise language negotiated at great length. 

In general, however, the bill addresses a larger authorization package than may 

be required by the 11 Federal agencies to implement and participate in the Record 

of Decision actions. Our Federal agencies have been able to rely on over fifty existing authorities (passed by Congress) that continue to enable Federal agency participation. We are submitting for the record a detailed matrix of those existing authorities. The key areas in which additional authorization is necessary are as follows: 

Environmental Water Account (EWA)—While the bill provides authority and participation for EWA program activities for the period years 4-7, we believe that the 

bill should authorize implementation of a long-term EWA in a fashion that supports 

the vision and flexibility envisioned in the ROD. The establishment and successful 

operation of a long-term EWA will be one of the most significant accomplishments 

of CALFED in reducing the conflicts between fisheries and water project operators. 

Levee Stability Program—The goal of the Levee System Integrity Program is to 

provide long-term protection for multiple Delta resources by maintaining and improving the integrity of the extensive Delta levees system. Authorization for feasibility study for risk assessment strategy, Delta Emergency management plan, 

dredged material reuse on Delta Islands, and best management practices to control 

and reverse land subsidence is needed as noted in the ROD. 

Implement Conveyance Program Elements—Authorization is needed for feasibility 

studies for the increased pumping to 10,300 cfs at H. O. Banks Pumping Plant, fish 

screen and intake at Clifton Court, and San Luis Reservoir Low Point Project. 

Ecosystem Restoration Program Financial Assistance—Authorization is needed to 

carry out the Ecosystem Restoration Program activities through the use of grants 

and cooperative agreements with non-Federal entities 

18

Cross-Cut Appropriation—Finally, Interior supports the concept of a cross-cut appropriation as delineated in the proposed bill which we believe will reduce inefficiencies and further improve Federal agency participation and recognition of implementation requirements. A cross-cut appropriation would more accurately reflect the 

contributions of the participating Federal agencies and lessen the risk to other Reclamation funded programs and projects in the Western states. 

Additional Concerns—The Administration has several specific concerns with the 

proposed legislation.

• As mentioned, appropriations are unlikely to approach the $880 million envisioned for Stage 1. Balanced progress in the program can only be achieved with 

a realistic expectation of CALFED appropriations. 

• Section 3 (C, iii): While the Administration supports improvements in Water 

Use Efficiency, this section references two studies that the Administration has 

not yet cleared. We cannot support legislation that codifies any studies that 

have not finished Administration review. Similarly, § 3(C, iii, II) directs the Secretary to review any seawater desalination and regional brine line feasibility 

studies, regardless of the lack of prior Department involvement in those studies. 

Such studies are generally not conducted with the best interests of the taxpayer 

in mind, and should under no circumstances be adopted by either the Administration or Congress without being subjected to the same scrutiny that applies 

to federally-sponsored studies. 

• The legislation presumes authorization of storage projects that are only now in 

the early phases of feasibility studies; if those projects are not pursued beyond 

the feasibility study stage, for whatever reason, it could indicate that CALFED 

implementation is out of balance; however, the legislation offers no alternate 

path for getting implementation back in balance. CALFED should identify alternate paths for achieving the outcomes of the storage component (as well as 

other components) of the program. 

• The Administration is concerned that the bill gives blanket authorization to 

projects that have not undergone the normal process of Executive Branch review. Completing this review process for all federal projects is crucial to ensure 

that the projects are in the national interest and appropriately address the 

problems facing the Bay Delta. 

• Section 5 (e) and Section 6 (a) duplicate one another to a large extent; reporting 

requirements could be integrated and streamlined by requiring a single budget 

crosscut. 

• Section 6 (a): There are Constitutional concerns regarding this section; Congress 

cannot direct what the President includes in his budget requests. The Department of Justice has provided alternate language that we plan to share with the 

Committee. 

CONCLUSION

The CALFED Program is truly at a critical juncture. After years of planning, the 

Program is now moving into the strategic implementation of key program and 

project activities. This forward momentum has been invigorated recently by the resolution of California’s use of Colorado River water, the Napa Proposition’s recommendations on coordinated operations of the CVP and SWP, and the implementing CALFED agencies’ commitments to re-evaluate the CALFED Program. I 

strongly believe that re-evaluation of the Program with a focus on developing affordable component actions that create a durable and balanced solution to continuous 

improvement in water supply, water quality and the environment will best serve the 

interests of all Californians. These objectives are within our reach. 

The Administration is encouraged by the accomplishments to date under the 

CALFED Program. Your support of the CALFED Program through enactment of 

pertinent authorizing legislation and associated funding for the participating Federal agencies is fundamental to continuing Federal implementation efforts under the 

Program. Through Federal, State, and public collaborative implementing efforts, 

progress has been made in improving water supply reliability and the ecological 

health of the Bay-Delta Estuary. By working together, we are putting programs into 

action that I believe will lead to the realization of the long term benefits and expectations of the CALFED Program. 

This concludes my testimony. Madam Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the Subcommittee and others for continuing to work with the Administration to address the significant water issues facing California. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

19

* Retained in subcommittee files. 

Attachments:*

1. CALFED Accomplishments for Years 1 through 3

2. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Federal Authorities for ROD and Related Activities

Senator MURKOWSKI. You have suggested that perhaps the $880 

million authorization in S. 1097 is not a realistic expectation. If, in 

fact, you do not consider that to be a realistic expectation of the 

Calfed appropriations, what would you consider to be an amount 

that is realistic? 

Mr. RALEY. A fair question, Senator, and I do not have an answer for that. We are just highlighting that, in light of budget pressures that Senator Kyl referenced, that—and without necessarily 

in any way disagreeing with Senator Feinstein’s accounting of the 

history of how this has been pared back and pared back, it may not 

be that the full $880 million is available. 

Our goal is to make the most appropriate and efficient use to 

achieve the principles that were articulated by Senator Feinstein 

of the Calfed balance and integration at the local level, et cetera, 

with whatever resources are available. We want Calfed to be scalable—in other words, that it moves forward in a meaningful and 

productive path with whatever resources are made available as a 

part of the budgeting process. But I’m sorry, Madam Chairman, I 

do not have a number to provide to you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I guess I probably would have been surprised if you had, but I needed to ask the question. 

Mr. RALEY. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In your written comments, you discussed 

the authority that the Federal Government already has to undertake Calfed Program activities. Could you explain what they already have and, in your opinion, what authorities the Federal Government lacks. 

Mr. RALEY. Well, as I recall, we rely on some 50, approximately, 

acts of Congress that—to support or authorize various aspects of 

the activities that are within Calfed, writ large, which includes 

both category A and category B expenditures. 

We believe that there are four areas for which additional authority would be appropriate. And so that I do not mistake them, if 

you’ll allow me to turn to find those four in my testimony——

They are: additional authority with respect to a long-term environmental water account, additional authority with respect to levy 

stabilization efforts, additional authority for conveyance project feasibility studies, and ecosystem system restoration grant-making. 

Those are four areas where we believe existing authorities are not 

adequate to support what is clearly going to be a part—or needed 

as a part of Calfed, moving forward. By listing those, we are not 

in any way implying that—a lack of support for the Calfed authorization that is the focus of Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer’s 

bill in this body, and Congressman Calvert and his colleagues over 

in the House. 

We would far prefer that there be the programmatic authorization for Calfed that Senator Feinstein and her colleagues have been 

working on for so long, because it will provide the unity, if you will, 

20

the cohesiveness, the crosscut budget, and many other advantages 

to reaching success that we simply won’t have if we are forced to 

move forward, as we have over the last three years, on a piecemeal 

basis, reaching and pulling from I think it’s 50 different authorities. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How much is currently being spent on activities that could be identified as consistent with the program components that are identified through the Calfed legislation? 

Mr. RALEY. Madam Chairman, I believe it’s slightly under $2 billion over years one through three. I recognize the bulk of that came 

from State and local sources, and that, as I recall, the Federal contributions over those 3 years is something like $230 million. Now, 

within categories A and B of Calfed expenditures, there are expenditures that virtually everyone agrees move forward on the 

Calfed objectives. There are others in category B that have greater 

or lesser degrees of direct relevance to the principles of Calfed, so 

it’s difficult, in light of the significant scope of Federal activities in 

California, to draw the line at a precise place. So our assessment 

was, where it’s been, over years one through three, under $2 billion, and $230 million of that being Federal. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And then one last question. Again, in your 

written comments, you note that the legislation presumes authorization of storage projects that may not be authorized after additional studies are completed. And you state in the testimony, that, 

‘‘Calfed should identify alternative paths—alternate paths for 

achieving the outcomes of the storage component of the program.’’ 

So do you have any suggestions as to how the storage component 

of the program can best be achieved? 

Mr. RALEY. The Secretary believes that the storage component of 

the program can best be achieved by pursuing the path that Senator Feinstein, Senator Burns, Senator Kyl, and all of you have 

talked about. We are very supportive of that. The reference in my 

testimony is a recognition of the reality that as projects go through 

the NEPA process, we will have to look at all alternatives for 

achieving a particular goal. And, you know, we can’t be predecisional, in terms of which one we might implement. 

On the other hand, the Secretary has joined with Senator Feinstein and others, and applauds her for recognizing that with the 

explosive population growth in California, unless other important 

sectors—whether it be agriculture, the environment, others—are, 

sort of, thrown overboard, which is not good public policy and not 

going to happen, the pie will have to be expanded. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. I appreciate your answers. 

We’ll next move to Senator Feinstein. For the information of 

those present, we have been called to a vote on an amendment, and 

I understand that they’re cutting us off at 20 minutes, so you’ll be 

seeing us coming and going throughout this hearing. 

So, Senator Feinstein, if you would care to ask your questions? 

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank you for your testimony, Mr. Raley. Your comments 

on storage surprised me a little bit, because there’s no way of 

knowing about a storage project until you do the feasibility studies 

on it. And I guess the four connected—Raising Shasta, Los 

Vaqueros, for water quality, the Upper San Joaquin, and Sites. 

21

Now, some of those probably will be more positive than others, but 

you can’t tell without doing the feasibility. Are you saying that we 

should not proceed to do those feasibility studies? 

Mr. RALEY. No. I apologize if that’s the inference. That was not 

the intent. We just simply were looking to, ultimately, the selection 

of what alternatives would be implemented. We are very supportive 

of the approach that you’ve adopted, in terms of proceeding with 

feasibility analyses for storage. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. See, I mean, this always remains an area of 

controversy, but, I mean, I’ve lived in California all my life. I’ve 

seen its growth. And, you look at how people use water, and you 

see very practical things. And, you know, I’m one that believes in 

conservation. It’s kind of interesting, in some respects there is more 

conservation in the North than there is in the South in a lot of 

areas. You know, there are dry lawns, people don’t water, everything is conserved, et cetera. But I’ve become convinced that you 

really can’t solve the problem unless you’re better able to take 

water from the wet years and hold it for the dry years, because 

nothing we do, if the planet is getting warmer, is really going to 

remove that need for storing water. And I’d be very happy to, you 

know, sit down and work that out with you. 

I also think, you know, clearly you’ve sent us a message from OMB, and OMB has said, I guess, that $880 million is unlikely to 

be available over the next 4 years. So then the question becomes, 

What do we do about it? Do we lengthen the years? Do we cut the 

gross amount? And based on what? And I mentioned this very 

briefly to Mr. Wright, who’s sitting directly behind you. And I 

would hope that within the next couple of weeks you might get together with him and might come up with a program that is 

fundable, that the administration is willing to make a commitment 

to. 

The reason I say this is because, you might guess, from my perspective there’s some degree of frustration. You know, I’ve tried to 

listen to everybody, I’ve tried to take what they have into consideration, just keep changing and changing. And we’ve got to get momentum. We’ve got to move this bill. 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, I understand your frustration and think 

you’re being quite gentle in expressing it. We will work together 

with all stakeholders in California. I can assure you that within 

the administration there is serious attention given to this legislation, as well as its counterparts in the House. And I do believe, 

without being able to predict what the number is, all the issues are 

resolvable. We are achingly close to—to borrow the term from the 

Colorado River fights about 3 months ago, achingly close to success, 

and we want to get there. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me ask you this last question, and 

then I’ve got to recess the committee and go and vote. Give me a 

length of time that we can solve these questions—in weeks, not 

months—because then I’m going to hold you to it. 

Mr. RALEY. That’s why I’m taking my time in answering. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RALEY. Could I complete that answer upon your return from 

voting? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, you may. 

22

Mr. RALEY. Okay, thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

And we’ll recess the committee for the time being. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. We’re back on the record. And 

before we were interrupted by that vote, I believe, Senator Feinstein, you were asking Mr. Raley some questions. And if you wanted to complete your round of questioning, that would be appropriate at this time. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Raley is going to come forth with pearls of wisdom as to 

when we might be able to have an answer with respect to a commitment from the administration on funding, how much, over what 

period of years. 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, I hoped that you had been distracted by 

other matters in the vote and would not remember the question 

that was posed. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RALEY. But I didn’t expect that to be the case. I cannot give 

you a number today. That is above my pay grade, and I don’t want 

to pretend. In talking to Patrick Wright, I believe that the Calfed 

process can go back and come up with numbers that Calfed, and 

particularly the Calfed Bay-Delta Authority, the State agency, believe are appropriate for funding amounts in the, sort of, near to 

medium term. 

What I can do, in terms of commitments, Senator, with respect 

to working out the issues, is commit that on the substantive issues, 

we will meet with your staff—and I know them to be reasonable, 

and I mean that—meet with your staff as soon as you wish, and 

we will meet with them until we either resolve things or distill 

down the issues to ones that we cannot, at our level, resolve. I’ll 

commit to doing that, you know, starting next week. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think that would be excellent. We’ll take 

you up on it. 

Mr. RALEY. All right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And let me quickly ask one other question. 

The recycling projects, the studies that Interior has been sitting 

on—your eyes are closed—and then saying that you cannot move 

forward on them? Why can you not move forward on them? 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, you’re again being gentle. The reason my 

eyes were closed is that I had thought that I was through being 

embarrassed about one in particular of those studies. The study on 

recycling in southern California—I take responsibility. The reason 

I’m looking pained is that I told Congressman Napolitano, several 

weeks ago, that I thought that that had been mailed out to the people that had paid for it so that they could review the current draft. 

I later found out that I was wrong, that because the people who 

were working on that had been pulled off to another issue, it hadn’t 

actually gone out, and I’ve been remiss in not calling Congressman 

Napolitano to tell her that it hadn’t gone out. 

But I will go back and find out if it’s gone out today. And if it 

hasn’t gone out, I will personally commit to you that it will go out 

by close of business Friday in whatever form it’s in. 

23

The delay for the last 2 years on that study is my responsibility. 

The version that I saw was—the study was gibberish. The executive summary was 30 pages. It was not until something like page 

28 that there were cost-per-acre-foot numbers. I could not tell, from 

reading the executive summary, exactly the message they were trying to communicate to the administration or to members of Congress. 

My charge was, go back—if we’re talking about the same study, 

Senator—write it in English, take out the internally inconsistent 

matters, do not touch the analysis, but write it in English and strip 

out the gibberish. It’s been done. It’s been sidelined at various 

times, because some of the people working at it are people who 

have been working on Colorado River and other things, and it will 

go out to the people that paid for it by Friday, regardless of the 

form it’s in. There has been no intent to sit on that study, other 

than my personal insistence that it speak in English, and that’s 

why I’m deeply pained by this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you were not, then, precluding recycling 

projects from being part of this. 

Mr. RALEY. Of Calfed? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. RALEY. No. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. 

Mr. RALEY. No. We have separate issues with respect to the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget. And our overall perspective has been 

that while title 16 is a very important program, and every single 

one of its various components can, in the right place at the right 

time, be material additions to water supply needs, we wish to have 

the Bureau of Reclamation focus on desalinization, including seawater and brackish water desalinization, so that we do not try to 

be all things to all people. Simply put, the Bureau of Reclamation 

is not the appropriate entity to be the lead, at a Federal level, on 

wastewater treatment capabilities. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, in addition to recycling, are there any 

other projects which we have not—that you’re concerned about? 

Mr. RALEY. Within the Calfed ROD? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You say that the administration is concerned 

that the bill gives blanket authorization to projects that have not 

undergone the normal process of executive-branch review. And I’m 

trying to get at what you’re referring to. 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, I’d characterize that as a continued expression by the executive branch of its need to look at projects on a 

case-specific basis. I recognize up front, Senator, that that desire 

is in somewhat—there’s a tension between that and the desire to 

move forward on a programmatic basis to deal with a balanced 

Calfed. And we will work through that tension to find success. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is that aimed because the environment—

there’s a certain environmental authorization? Is that what you’re 

aiming at? 

Mr. RALEY. No, Senator, that is the—at a more substantive, sort 

of, level, that is executive branch wanting to be able to look at specific projects and—as a conceptual or a policy matter. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, you know——

Mr. RALEY. Do not read more into that than——

24

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing}. My view of this is that you 

should have that right. I don’t have a problem with it. The thing 

that I have a problem with is the holding everything up. You know, 

I think we ought to work together so that those reviews take place. 

I don’t want to fund projects that are not valid and cost-effective 

projects. There’s just too much that has to be done. 

Mr. RALEY. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So I don’t think that should be an impediment, because we want to cooperate. 

Mr. RALEY. We know you do, Senator. And, actually, we share 

the same goals. And that’s an issue that I am quite comfortable, 

I’m certain, can be resolved in the context of your legislation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. And there are some projects where 

you may want to say, ‘‘If the State wants to fund that, that’s up 

to us, but we don’t feel we should be a part of it.’’ And originally 

when we started this process, there were some projects that I saw 

Calfed was doing, and I didn’t think we wanted to be a part of 

them either. But I think we’ve shaken some of that out. And, I 

mean, if there is more of that, then we need to take care of it. 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, I’d characterize it more as the inherent tension as we try to move from the traditional Bureau of Reclamation 

history of project-by-project-by-project authorizations to a broader 

approach of Calfed and a crosscut budget. That shift—I mean, if 

you compare, for example, the WRDA process—and I’m not saying 

that Bureau should go to that. I’m just saying the shift from a 

project-specific history of authorizations to something like Calfed 

takes time, and there are some steps in between as we move in 

that direction. That’s what that language referred to. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Raley. 

Mr. RALEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Raley, for the time that you’ve spent with this 

committee. 

Mr. RALEY. It’s a pleasure. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We’d next like to invite to the table the following witnesses—this is the stakeholder panel. Mr. Patrick 

Wright, the director of the California Bay-Delta Authority, Mr. Ron 

Gastelum, the CEO of the Metropolitan Water District, Mr. Tom 

Birmingham, general manager for the Westlands Water District, 

Mr. Tom Graff, regional director, Environmental Defense, Ms. 

Sunne McPeak, the CEO of San Francisco Bay Area Council, and 

Mr. David Guy, the executive director of the Northern California 

Water Association. 

Thank you all for being here today. I know that you all certainly 

live with the realities of this program, and the committee thanks 

you for your insight and your contributions here. Also, I appreciate 

the travel that you have taken to join us this afternoon. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Madam Chairman, would you allow me just 

one minute. 

Sunne McPeak and I were supervisors together way back when, 

and it’s just great to have her here. And the San Francisco Bay 

Area Council is really a very prestigious group of businesses and 

major community leaders. And I must say that, as a public official, 

25

she was one of the most impressive I have ever met, and so it is 

just wonderful to have her back here in this new capacity, which 

isn’t new to her now, but the years have passed for both of us, 

Sunne. 

Ms. MCPEAK. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Well, with that, if we can begin 

with you, Mr. Wright.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR,

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITY, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. 

Today, I’d like to provide just a brief overview of the Bay-Delta 

Program’s major accomplishments, with a special emphasis on 

some of the key events that have taken place during the last year. 

But first, of course, I, too, want to especially express my appreciation for the leadership and the persistence of your colleague, Senator Feinstein. 

Together with Congressman Ken Calvert, on the House side, she 

has been the strongest champion of this unprecedented collaborative effort. And, in fact, we have made tremendous progress since 

the State and Federal agencies came together in the summer of 

2000 with the Senator’s help to a collaborative, balanced, comprehensive plan to meet the goals of the program. 

In the first 3 years of the program, we have coordinated the ex- penditures of over $2 billion in Federal, State, and local funds to 

meet the program’s goals. We’ve significantly improved the level of 

coordination among the nearly two dozen agencies involved in the 

program. We have largely eliminated the major conflicts that have 

occurred over Delta operations, which previously led to annual 

shutdowns of the pumping plants. And we have launched an independent science program which conducts workshops and independent reviews of all the program elements. 

Now, I’d be one of the first people to say that one of our challenges is describing the benefits of the program, since they are not 

always highly visible. It’s difficult sometimes to measure the benefits and the value of agency coordination in avoiding crises, and 

memories tend to be short about how bad those crises were in the 

early 1990’s. 

And we aren’t just talking about a handful of highly visible 

water-supply projects, we’re talking about an investment in the 

last 3 years of a billion dollars in water-supply projects to local 

communities throughout the State to help them better meet their 

most pressing water needs and, just as important, to reduce their 

dependence on the Delta and the Colorado River. 

On the ecosystem side, as well, we’re not talking about a handful 

of projects that have the kind of visibility of some of Senator Feinstein’s other efforts, like headwaters or the desert or Tahoe. We’re 

dealing, again, with hundreds of ecosystem restoration projects to 

try to protect the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas. 

Sometimes it’s difficult to characterize that, because it’s a sum 

total of a lot of small projects. But, believe me, the payoff is just 

26

as large and just as important for the State’s economy and environment. 

The program is likely to become more visible this coming year as 

we move forward with a package of actions to improve the flexibility of the State’s water system, including expanding the capability of the State water project to pump more water, a new and 

larger environmental water account to protect fish and wildlife, 

and other measures to improve water quality and protect local 

diverters. 

Now, of course, there continues to be some skepticism out there 

that the agencies can pull this off, that the conflicts among competing users in California are simply too great to overcome. But I 

think our growing track record suggests otherwise. There is simply 

no question that we are—that water supplies are significantly more 

reliable today than they were three years ago, and there is no question that we have reversed the decades-long decline in fish populations. One species has already been de-listed, and others are 

clearly on the rebound. 

And, finally, let me assure you that there’s no place in the country where so many agencies are working more closely together, and 

no place where more funds are being devoted to science to guide 

our decision-making. 

At last year’s hearing, I outlined our top three priorities to keep 

this collaborative effort going. The first was to establish a new governance structure to oversee implementation of the program and to 

provide better oversight and accountability. The second was to secure passage of a State water bond, Proposition 50, to provide the 

State’s share of funding. And the third was congressional authorization for the Federal agencies to fully participate in the program. 

I’m very pleased to report that we now have a governance structure in place and a source of State funding to carry us through the 

next 3 years. What remains to be accomplished is the third objective, a bill to authorize Federal partnership and full participation 

in the program. That is the only way to ensure that the Federal 

agencies remain highly committed to the program and to maintain 

a strong State/Federal partnership, rather than being left with a 

State effort with limited Federal coordination and oversight. 

Simply put, a strong State/Federal partnership is essential to 

move forward in building upon our accomplishments to date. 

Thank you, again, for hearing my comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR,

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITY, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Chairwoman Murkowski and members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. Today I would 

like to provide a brief overview of the Bay-Delta Program’s major accomplishments, 

with an emphasis on the events since I last testified before the Subcommittee. 

But first, I want especially to express my appreciation for the leadership and persistence of your colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein. Together with Congressman 

Ken Calvert on the House side, she has been a strong champion of this unprecedented effort to implement a long-term comprehensive plan to address ecological 

health and water supply reliability problems in the Bay-Delta. 

The California Bay-Delta Program is unique in its collaborative and non-regulatory approach to solving water and ecosystem problems. A partnership of state 

and federal agencies and stakeholders, it addresses four resource management 

27

issues concurrently and in a balanced fashion: water supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and levee system integrity. 

The issues in the Delta have broad effects statewide, and even throughout the 

West. The Bay-Delta system:

• Provides drinking water to 22 million people 

• Supports a trillion dollar economy, including a $27 billion agricultural industry 

• Forms of the hub of the largest estuary on the west coast and is home to 750 

plant and animal species and supports 80 percent of the State’s commercial 

salmon fisheries.

We have made much progress since August 2000, when State and Federal 

CALFED agencies signed the Record of Decision (ROD), formally approving a longterm plan for the Delta. In its first three years, the Program has:

• Coordinated the expenditures of over $2 billion in federal, state, and local funds 

to meet the Program’s goals; 

• Significantly improved the level of coordination among the nearly two dozen 

agencies that are involved in the program; 

• Largely eliminated major conflicts over Delta operations, which previously led 

to annual shutdowns of the pumping plants, through the development of the 

Environmental Water Account; and 

• Launched an Independent Science Program, which conducts workshops and 

independent reviews of all program elements.

At last year’s hearing, I outlined our three top priorities for the coming year:

• Establishing a new governance structure to oversee implementation of the program; 

• Securing passage of the state water bond, Proposition 50, to provide the state’s 

share of funding for the program; and 

• Congressional authorization for the federal agencies to fully participate in the 

program.

I am pleased to report to you that we now have a governance structure in place 

and a source of state funding to carry us through the next three years. What remains to be accomplished is the third objective: a bill to authorize federal partnership and full participation in the Program. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITY ACT OF 2003

The California Bay-Delta Authority (Authority), established by California legislation enacted in 2002 (California Bay-Delta Authority Act), provides a permanent 

governance structure for the collaborative State-Federal effort that began in 1994. 

The Authority is charged specifically with ensuring balanced implementation of the 

Program, providing accountability to the Legislature, Congress and the public, and 

ensuring the use of sound science across all Program areas. 

The Authority is composed of representatives from six State agencies and six Federal agencies, five public members from the Program’s five regions, two at-large 

public members, a representative from the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, 

and four ex officio members who are the chairs and vice-chairs of the California 

Senate and Assembly water committees. At present, lacking specific authorization 

to be full participants, the federal members engage in discussions but do not vote. 

In addition, the legislation establishing the Authority contains a sunset clause that 

will eliminate the program unless a federal authorization bill is passed by 2006. 

CALIFORNIA VOTERS PASS PROPOSITION 50

In November 2002, California voters passed a $3.4 billion bond measure known 

as Prop. 50, which provides funding for water quality and local water supply 

projects, coastal land protection and acquisition, and for activities directly and indirectly related to the Bay-Delta Program. 

In all, the $825 million in direct funding and roughly 2 billion in funding for BayDelta related programs and projects means that the Program is on solid financial 

footing through FY 2006. 

FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION

The Federal agencies have also contributed significantly to the program. In the 

first three years, we have coordinated the expenditures of approximately $150 million, primarily from the Department of Interior, on programs and projects that directly contribute to the goals of the Bay-Delta Program. 

28

We’ve also worked with the federal agencies to better clarify the elements of the 

Program that either already have—or still need—Federal authorization. We have 

concluded that nearly all of the specific projects in the Record of Decision are authorized under existing statutes, including the Reclamation Act, the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, and the Clean Water Act, but that federal legislation is 

needed to authorize federal involvement in our efforts to better coordinate these programs with state and local programs to address the state’s water supply, water 

quality, and ecosystem restoration needs. 

In summary, with a governance structure and state funding in place, our primary 

goal now is to secure federal authorization and funding for the program. That is the 

only way we can continue to have a strong state/federal partnership, rather than 

a state effort with limited federal oversight. 

Thank you again for hearing my comments.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Wright. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

Ms. McPeak. 

STATEMENT OF SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, BAY AREA COUNCIL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Ms. MCPEAK. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Senator 

Feinstein. It is, indeed, a pleasure to be invited here to share the 

perspective of the employer community. 

You have my written testimony. Let me just briefly summarize 

our perspective. 

I do work for the Bay Area Council, which is about 270 major 

employers in the San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area. We 

also work with a coalition of employer organizations throughout 

California. And as Senator Feinstein introduced this bill today, she 

referenced the usual stakeholders that participate in water—water 

agencies in the urban areas, Ag, and environmental community. 

A couple of decades ago, the Bay Area Council and employers in 

California became engaged. And I dare say that that’s a very positive force in the dynamic of trying to reach consensus. For me, I 

have spent, personally, 30 years in California water policy. And 

your opening statement about Mark Twain’s humorous observation 

of California’s history around water is true—up until the time that 

the Calfed record of decision was signed. 

Now, we’re still going to drink whiskey, and hopefully we’ll do 

that in celebration. But the reason I’m here today is because we 

have the opportunity to set behind us the water wars and to go forward with environmental restoration and stability for economic recovery. The employer community in the Bay Area and California 

look to Congress and your action in the Senate to be a signal for, 

‘‘Can we actually have stability in our infrastructure?’’

We participated in the Calfed process. I served for 5 years as cochair of the Citizens Bay-Delta Advisory Committee that recommended the record of decision. After 30 years, you get some perspective. We have survived changes in administration, both in Sacramento and in Washington. That speaks well. I was very 

enheartened to see that our new Governor-elect has already become 

active in supporting the adoption of Calfed as a Federal commitment, going forward. 

I want to just underscore why we think it’s important that there 

be action on this bill. Even though there exists authorization for 

some of the Federal agencies to participate, if there is not the affirmation, the recommitment, the signal from the Congress and the 

29

Federal administration to be a full partner in Calfed, there may be 

questions, there may not be as much enthusiasm, there may not be 

as much energy committed to the implementation of the programs. 

Furthermore, what Senator Feinstein has referenced as a balanced 

package we want to underscore as being essential as integrated set 

of actions that, unless they are fully carried out, all components of 

Calfed, we will not have enough water for either the environment 

or the economy. 

So we come here today in support of you, Senator Feinstein, and 

your leadership. When you pulled everybody together in the early 

1990’s, and we finally got the accord and then moved on to Calfed, 

the business community welcomed that. We have unified north, 

south, east, west, which is not easy to do in the State of California. 

And we greatly appreciate, Madam Chair, your hearing us out, and 

we are enheartened by hearing the testimony heretofore that has 

the prospect of that momentum, so that we can, in fact, move 

ahead on a reasonable, reliable water policy for the State of California. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McPeak follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

BAY AREA COUNCIL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

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 

their 101 cities, including Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose, the heart of Silicon 

Valley. The economy of the Bay Area is approximately $300 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 during the last two decades, and since 1994, 

has been deeply engaged in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Bay Area Council 

also works closely with a coalition of business-sponsored, employer-based statewide 

and regional organizations throughout California. 

The following points summarize the perspectives of the Bay Area Council and the 

coalition of business-sponsored, employer-based organizations in support of S. 1097 

and implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and Record of Decision. 

With the state and the nation still recovering from a prolonged economic downturn, it is critical that we do not hamper economic recovery because of a water system in chaos. 

California faced economic chaos and political paralysis in early 1990 when urban 

areas throughout the state were imposing mandatory rationing due to drought and 

policy gridlock. At that time, businesses were questioning whether to expand or locate plants in California, because of concerns regarding unreliable water supplies. 

Farmers in the southern San Joaquin Valley received no surface water supplies and 

key fisheries in the Bay-Delta watershed were declining at alarming rates. 

The Bay-Delta Ecosystem is the largest estuary in North America, a key stop on 

the Pacific flyway. It also is a critical drinking water source for 22 million Californians. In addition, the water supplies from this watershed also fuel California’s economic engine, now the 5th largest economy in the world. 

Employers that drive economic growth and productivity are among the most dependent on reliable, high-quality water. Thriving businesses lead to more jobs that 

lead to a stronger economy. California’s growing population, expected to approach 

50 million by 2020 will need more jobs. The Bay Area alone is projected to generate 

more than 1 million news jobs by 2020 and grow by an estimated 1.4 million people. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program provides the road map for the future of California water. The key components of the plan are to improve water supply and quality and the ecological health of the Bay-Delta Ecosystem. 

Through the CALFED Program and local investment in water conservation, reclamation and other programs, considerable gains are being made in water supply 

reliability. The water market between willing buyers and sellers has also improved. 

30

Most impressive have been gains in CALFED’s unprecedented ecosystem restoration 

program. 

California businesses have invested literally billions of dollars to increase their 

water efficiency and get more out of every gallon of water. 

But full implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program cannot be realized 

without federal authorization and funding. 

S. 1097 provides the authorization and funding to advance the CALFED storage 

and conveyance programs. The business community views these components as critical pieces to improving the water supply for both California and the states served 

by the Colorado River. 

Funds also are included for water quality improvements vital to Bay Area and 

California high value-added industries, such as information technology and life 

sciences. 

This legislation also continues to support California’s aggressive efforts in the 

area of water use efficiency, water recycling and desalination. 

S. 1097 helps to continue the commitment to environmental restoration in an essential partnership with responsible federal agencies to ensure timeliness and optimal benefit. 

The CALFED Record of Decision was an historic accomplishment made possible 

because of unprecedented cooperation and collaboration between federal and state 

leaders and agencies. A broad base of stakeholders joined forces to support an integrated, balanced set of actions essential to restore the environment and support economic prosperity. It is critical that the federal government remain a vital partner 

in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Now is the time for action. Approval of S. 1097 

ensures that the Bay-Delta Ecosystem will be protected and restored while California’s economy has the necessary water resources to rebound and sustain prosperity.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Graff. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. GRAFF, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, OAKLAND, CA 

Mr. GRAFF. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Feinstein. 

I, too, want to add my comments to those of others, other Senators and Sunne McPeak. It’s always difficult to follow Sunne 

McPeak when one is on a panel. In the old days, when she was the 

supervisor and the Senator was mayor and supervisor, we all 

worked together on a little project called the Peripheral Canal Referendum. Those were amazing days, I have to say. 

However, Senator, your remarkable efforts and persistence on 

these issues are something that your colleagues have recognized. 

That’s obviously more important than my recognizing it, but I do 

want to, sort of, attach my voice to that set of comments, as well, 

and just to commend you on the ability to get a letter from the 

Governor-elect and have that be one of the first comments of our 

new leader-to-be in California. 

I’m going to just take highlight excerpts from my written testimony—I know that’s part of the record—and hopefully not take too 

much of the committee’s time. 

I start by saying that the fundamental questions that S. 1097 

presents to this subcommittee, and ultimately to the Congress as 

a whole and to the President, are two: One, whether the Calfed 

Program should be authorized at all; and the other, if it is to be 

authorized, should it be authorized, quote, ‘‘in a manner consistent 

with’’ the August 28, 2000, ROD? 

The Calfed Program, as it has evolved, has much to commend it. 

Most notably—although it has, of course, not operated without considerable friction among some stakeholders, including some at this 

table and between the Federal and State governments, almost irrespective of political party—it’s greatest strength is that it brings 

31

the Federal and State water project operating agencies and departments and the Federal and State natural resource management 

agencies under one umbrella. Calfed pressures agencies to consult, 

to resolve differences, and to operate in a more consistent manner. 

And I think Senator Feinstein deserves immense credit for making 

all that happen. 

And that has had effects. Speaking narrowly, from the environmentalist perspective, the birds of the Pacific flyway, and the migratory and resident fish of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed 

generally are better off today than they were a decade ago when 

Calfed was originally launched. And this, of course, is also a tribute 

to Congress, and, in particular, to the passage of the CVPIA in 

1992, and to the work of—the bipartisan work, I might add, of Senators Bradley and Garn in passing that bill. 

Other Federal laws also play important parts in protecting the 

ecosystem, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act, among others. 

So even if a Calfed Program, per se, is not formally reauthorized 

by Congress, some version of it, we believe, will surely continue. 

The merits of Federal/State and of operator/resource-manager cooperation have been widely recognized, and all agencies recognize 

the importance of working together to resolve or at least minimize 

conflicts. 

So that’s the good news. What’s the bad news? 

The bad news is that the Record of Decision of August 28, 2000, 

has not been funded. And I just might comment, in retrospect, that 

was clear that it was not going to happen, even under the very 

budgetarily positive circumstances, Federal and State, that were 

still the case in 2000, and here we are, of course, 3 years later, 

when the fiscal realities are very different at both levels of government. 

The most fundamental assumption, that has proved to be false, 

from the August 28, 2000, ROD, was the one Secretary Babbitt 

made in assuming that there would be a minimum of $2.5 billion 

in Federal funds available to subsidize Calfed for just the first 7 

years of the program’s life. And it is a 30-year program. In his 

view, the Federal share would have matched comparable State and 

user shares for a total of $71⁄2 billion, and it was actually an $81⁄2

billion program, and the ROD never identified the other billion as 

to where it would come from. 

The second assumption that’s proved to be false is the remarkable expectation at the time that water users would step forward 

to pay their fair share of the program’s costs. 

Anyone looking at the circumstances, even in 2000, would have, 

I think, concluded that the users had no intention of contributing 

significant funds to the environmental restoration objectives of the 

ROD. Indeed, their principal financial objective was to get taxpayers to pay, not only for restoration, but, as much as possible, 

for mitigation, including the year-to-year funding for the so-called 

environmental water account. 

And we are supporters, I might add, of the environmental water 

account, but it is a mechanism that allows the water users to have 

their full export quantities, and it ought to be viewed as mitigation 

and paid for by users, rather than be subsidized by taxpayers. 

32

Similarly, the users apparently have no intention of paying for 

new surface storage projects either. Their goal, again, Federal and 

State taxpayer subsidies justified, if they believe justification is 

needed at all, by specious arguments that the dams they hope and 

expect taxpayers will fund are environmental dams that have no 

user benefits warranting significant contributions by project beneficiaries. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Graff? 

Mr. GRAFF. Yes? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’m going to have to interrupt you. 

We’ve got just a couple of minutes left in a vote. 

Mr. GRAFF. Okay, I’ll try and wrap up. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I was hoping that you would be able to 

wrap up your testimony before we took a break. 

Mr. GRAFF. I just wanted to point out, then, a couple more 

things, that the administration is not even funding 25 percent of 

reclamation projects, and that’s too bad. And then, lastly, although 

this is a complex matter, probably beyond the interest of many who 

are not from California, the projects and the water exporters went 

to a meeting to which they did not invite many other interested 

parties, including many who have opposed Calfed from the start, 

and came up with a program to increase Delta exports by a million 

acre-feet per year, or more. 

And I brought the documentation for that, in case anyone’s interested. I understand they’re now back-pedaling from that number, 

but it is the number that they put out. And our position, basically, 

on the second part of the bill, whether to reauthorize this program 

on the basis of the August 28, 2000, ROD is, no, until at least we 

understand better what the million acre-feet of additional exports 

mean and we know where the funding is coming from. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. GRAFF, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, OAKLAND, CA 

Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee: Thank you for your invitation to 

testify today on S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act. 

I am Thomas J. Graff, California Regional Director of Environmental Defense, a 

national environmental advocacy organization. I have represented Environmental 

Defense in various capacities since 1971. I have also served on several boards and 

commissions that have dealt with issues related to those raised by S. 1097, including the Colorado River Board of California, the National Research Council’s Committee on Western Water Management Change, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 

Investigation Program Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Bay Delta Advisory 

Council. 

S. 1097 is a complex bill whose basic intent, as stated by its authors, is ‘‘To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program’’. 

Definitions proposed in the bill indicate that the Calfed Program includes ‘‘programs, projects, complementary actions, and activities undertaken through coordinated planning, implementation, and assessment activities of . . . State and Federal agencies in a manner consistent with [a] Record of Decision (ROD) dated August 28, 2000, issued by the Federal agencies and supported by the State’’. 

The fundamental questions S. 1097 presents to this Subcommittee and ultimately 

to the Congress as a whole and to the President are:

(1) Whether the Calfed Program should be authorized at all; and 

(2) If it is to be authorized, should it be authorized ‘‘in a manner consistent 

with’’ the August 28, 2000 ROD.

33

These are important and difficult questions not only for California’s Senators and 

Representatives, but also for Senators and Representatives hailing from other states 

of the Union, especially the Western Reclamation States. The answers Congress 

gives to these questions will have reverberations in physical terms, in economic repercussions, and in setting precedents on significant issues of natural resource management and of federalism, that will bear on the other 49 states almost as much 

as they will impact California and its resources and governance directly. 

The Calfed Program, as it has evolved, has much to commend it. Most notably, 

although it has of course not operated without considerable friction among stakeholders and between the Federal and State Governments, almost irrespective of political party affiliation, its greatest strength is that it brings the Federal and State 

water project operating agencies and departments and the Federal and State natural resource management (and to some degree regulatory) agencies under one umbrella. Calfed pressures agencies to consult, to resolve differences, and to operate 

in a more consistent, coordinated, and cooperative manner, that addresses the interests of many stakeholders. 

Speaking narrowly from the environmental perspective, the birds of the Pacific 

Flyway and the migratory and resident fish of the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed generally are better off today than they were a decade ago, when Calfed was 

originally launched. This is in large measure a tribute to Congress’ passage of the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and especially in this body to the 

work of Senators Bradley and Garn in passing the 1992 omnibus water projects act. 

But it also reflects the operations of other federal laws, including the Endangered 

Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, all 

of which give Federal (and to some degree State) wildlife and environmental quality 

managers authority and tools to fulfill their mandates, working in cooperation with 

the water project operating agencies, who generally view their principal responsibility to be the delivery of water supplies to their contractors. 

Even if a Calfed program per se is not formally reauthorized by Congress, some 

version of it will surely continue. The merits of Federal-State and of operator-resource manager cooperation have been widely recognized, and all agencies recognize 

the importance of working together to resolve, or at least minimize, conflicts. 

The much more difficult question, however, is not whether a Calfed program of 

some kind should proceed, whether with formal Congressional authorization or 

without, but rather whether the program that proceeds should be the one adopted 

by the Clinton and Davis Administrations on August 28, 2000 in the Record of Decision signed by Secretary of the Interior Babbitt and Secretary of Resources Nichols. 

Many in the environmental community have pinned their hopes on the 2000 ROD, 

have successfully worked to pass large State bond measures and funding authorizations based on the 2000 ROD, and have rightfully criticized significant decisions, 

particularly decisions by the Department of the Interior, that have cut back on environmental assurances promised in the 2000 ROD. 

For Environmental Defense, however, whatever one’s view may have been of the 

merits of the 2000 ROD when it was issued, it should be clear now, more than three 

years later, that basic assumptions underlying the ROD are no longer valid and that 

the fundamental political compromise that Secretaries Babbitt and Nichols forged—

that appeared to give both the export contractors and environmental advocates expectations that Calfed would meet their needs has proved to be unsustainable in 

the real world of stakeholder negotiations and of pressure on project operators and 

resource managers to deliver on these expectations. 

The most fundamental assumption that has proved to be false was the one Secretary Babbitt made in assuming that there would be a minimum of $2.5 billion in 

Federal funds available to subsidize the Calfed program over just the first seven 

years of the program’s life. In his view, this Federal share would have matched comparable State and user shares for a total of $7.5 billion. For an additional billion 

dollars of the $8.5 billion that the 2000 ROD contemplated would be spent in the 

first seven years, the ROD identified no source. 

The second assumption that also has proved to be false was the remarkable expectation that water users would step forward to pay their fair share of the program’s 

costs. For any veteran observer of the history of both the Central Valley Project and 

the State Water Project, it was of course obvious even in 2000 that the users had 

no intention of contributing significant funds to the environmental restoration objectives of the ROD. Indeed, their principal financial objective was to get taxpayers to 

pay not only for restoration, but as much as possible for mitigation of their own 

project environmental impacts, an objective on which they have made significant 

headway not only in the passage of State Propositions 40 and 50, but also in yearto-year Congressional and State funding of the so-called ‘‘Environmental’’ Water Account. 

34

It also should have been obvious then, as it is obvious now, that the users have 

no intention of paying for new surface storage projects either. Their goal again: Federal and State taxpayer subsidies justified, if they believe justification is needed at 

all, by specious arguments that the dams they hope and expect taxpayers will fund 

are environmental dams, that have no user benefits warranting significant contributions by project beneficiaries. 

It is with respect to the federal funding issue that the contrast is perhaps greatest 

between the last Federal Administration and the current Administration. Secretary 

Norton’s Water 2025 initiative and her Administration’s recent successful conclusion 

of the package of agreements surrounding the California 4.4 Plan are real achievements, but they are not major departures from the efforts of Secretary Babbitt that 

preceded Secretary Norton’s involvements. What is a departure was perhaps most 

graphically demonstrated in Administration testimony just last month before this 

Subcommittee’s counterpart in the House of Representatives. 

Testifying on a group of bills to authorize Federal participation in a number of 

wastewater recycling projects, including a bill introduced by Rules Committee 

Chairman David Dreier, on which Federal cost-shares are generally limited to no 

more than 25 percent of the projects’ costs, the Administration brusquely opposed 

all the projects (which Senator Boxer is co-sponsoring in the Senate). To quote the 

Administration testimony on just one of these bills, Congressman Dreier’s H.R. 

2991: ‘‘Any new project authorized at this time will place an additional burden on 

Reclamation’s already tight budget, and could potentially delay the completion of 

other currently authorized projects. With the tremendous back log of existing Title 

XVI projects, we cannot support the addition of new projects at this time.’’

If there is no Federal money available to cost-share, at no more than 25 percent 

of their total cost, broadly beneficial and supported wastewater reclamation projects, 

for which there are local co-sponsors and supplemental funding lined up, what 

chance is there that the $8.5 billion program envisioned in the CALFED 2000 ROD 

will ever be funded at the Federal level? 

The lack of assumed Federal funding for most purposes and the lack of assumed 

user funding for environmental purposes and for dam construction, however, are not 

the only major problems with the 2000 ROD. The other fundamental problem with 

the 2000 ROD was the expectation it created among the Federal and State water 

project export contractors that San Francisco Bay Delta exports could be substantially increased, without substantial adverse effects on the Bay, other water users, 

upstream and Delta interests, and the environment. Several of the more suspicious 

and paranoid, or perhaps far-sighted, advocates of these often overlooked constituencies were critical of the 2000 ROD from the start. The Farm Bureau, the Regional 

Council of Rural Counties, the Central and South Delta Water Agencies and Trinity 

River protectors, to name just a few opponents, either filed litigation or pursued active political opposition against the ROD or both. 

Now, just three years after the ROD’s issuance, their skepticism has proven to 

be fully warranted. This July, at a meeting in Napa attended by Federal and State 

project operators and Federal and State export contractors, but not by Calfed’s leaders, by Federal or State natural resource managers, or by representatives of many 

other water interest or environmental groups, a Proposition was developed to increase Delta exports. According to its leading proponents, the Napa Proposition and 

associated projects authorized in the 2000 ROD would increase Delta diversions by 

a million acre feet per year or more. Definitely without any of the new proposed 

storage projects that the 2000 ROD singled out for feasibility analysis and mostly 

without significant financial investment in new projects of any kind, the Napa Proposition ‘‘created’’ a million acre feet for its stakeholder participants. 

Claiming that it was simply implementing the 2000 ROD, the Napa Proposition 

would allow State Water Project contractors (who are not subject to the acreage limitations established in federal law) unprecedented access to the Central Valley 

Project’s water storage reservoirs. It would also accept as a liability of the Central 

Valley Project much of the more junior State Water Project’s responsibility to meet 

water quality and environmental obligations in the Bay and Delta and beyond. In 

exchange, the most junior contractors of the Central Valley Project receive an additional water supply. And what operational flexibility and opportunity for coordination Napa determined the projects can muster are reserved exclusively for the exporters’ benefit. 

All this, of course, would operate to the detriment of the other interests who were 

not invited to the Napa negotiations, including not only Bay, Delta, upstream, and 

environmental interests, but Trinity River proponents as well. Despite the United 

States’ trust obligation to the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes, no promise was extracted 

from any CVP contractor that it would dismiss litigation against the United States, 

the Trinity River and the Tribes, even though CVP contractors would receive very 

35

substantial benefits if Napa were to be implemented. The oft-repeated mantra of the 

project contractors—‘‘We should all get better together’’—rings hollow indeed in 

Napa’s aftermath. 

So the fundamental issue this Subcommittee faces, as it considers S. 1097, is 

whether to authorize a program based on the 2000 ROD, for which little federal or 

user funding is likely to be forthcoming and which is expected by its principal stakeholder proponents to provide a million acre-feet or more per year of additional Delta 

exports. 

When the question is posed in this manner, I believe the whole Senate, including 

the bill’s sponsors, should oppose the bill. It ought now to be incumbent, especially 

on the Napa Proposition’s drafters, to explain how the CVP and the SWP can safely 

and equitably increase their draw on the Bay Delta ecosystem and on northern California generally by over a million acre feet, how they can do it without significant 

new Federal and user funding, and how they can do it without adverse impacts on 

other communities and on the environment. 

Environmental Defense challenges the contractors to make their case. If they cannot make their case, this is not the end of Calfed. But it should be the end of the 

unreasonable and unsustainable expectations of additional Delta exports that were 

created by the Calfed ROD and that are expanded and codified in the Napa Proposition.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

I’m going to let everybody take a little stretch break while we go 

vote, and we’ll be back in a few minutes. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay, we are back on the record. I apologize for that delay. Hopefully, we’ll be able to get through the balance of the panel without any further interruption. 

Mr. Birmingham, if you can give us your testimony, please? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, GENERAL MANAGER/GENERAL COUNSEL, WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, 

FRESNO, CA 

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator 

Feinstein. 

At the outset, I want to state that Westlands strongly supports 

S. 1097, and would like to extend to Senator Feinstein Westlands’ 

appreciation for her introduction of this bill. 

I wish that Senator Kyl and Senator Burns were here, because 

I would like also to extend to them our appreciation for their hard 

work in the last Congress, with Senator Feinstein, to craft a bill. 

But I would like to extend to Senator Kyl and Senator Burns our 

appreciation for their hard work, on behalf of California and the 

Nation, to craft a bill in the last Congress that we could then, and 

now, enthusiastically support. 

Westlands Water District is one of 32 Central Valley Project contractors south of the Bay-Delta that receive water from the Central 

Valley Project primarily for irrigation purposes. 

I certainly don’t want to disagree with anything that Senator 

Feinstein said in her opening remarks, but, frankly, Calfed probably is a little bit—from our perspective, a little bit too late and 

too little. Agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, 

which is one of the most productive regions in the world, is at risk 

because of inadequate water supplies. Over the course of the last 

10 years, we have seen our water-supply reliability go from an average of 92 percent, in 1991, to a 50 percent reliability based upon 

the regulatory baseline described in the Calfed Record of Decision. 

36

That water supply has improved over the course of the last few 

years, in large part thanks to the prodding of Senator Feinstein 

and the efforts of the Calfed agencies to improve water-supply reliability. But if we’re going to sustain agriculture on the west side 

of the San Joaquin Valley and in other areas of California, we must 

move forward with the Calfed Program. 

In 1957, prior to the construction of the State Water Project that 

Senator Feinstein referred to in her comments, the California Department of Water Resources wrote, in the first California Water 

Plan Bulletin, bulletin three, ‘‘California is presently faced with 

problems of a highly critical nature, the need for further control, 

protection, conservation, and distribution of her most vital resource, water. 

Today, the future agricultural, urban, and industrial growth of 

California hinges on a highly important decision, which is well 

within the power of the people to make. We can move forward with 

a thriving economy by pursuing a vigorous and progressive water 

development planning and construction program, or we can allow 

our economy to stagnate, perhaps even retrogress, by adopting a 

complacent attitude and leaving each district, community, agency, 

or other entity to secure its own water supply as best it can with 

small regard to the needs of others. 

As Senator Feinstein said, today we’re facing an identical problem. We’re trying to maintain the economy of the State of California with an infrastructure that was designed and constructed 

when the population of the State was 14 to 16 million people, and 

today we are at 35 million people, and we will have inevitable 

growth that must be accommodated through the construction of 

new water infrastructure. 

As Senator Feinstein indicated in her opening remarks, California has very many different water needs—water for environmental restoration, for cities, and for farmers. If the needs are 

going to be met, we must have a program for water conservation, 

recycling, and desalination; water quality must be improved; but, 

of greater importance, from our perspective, we need new water 

storage and water conveyance. The Calfed Program was designed 

to meet the needs of all of these water interests in an evenhanded 

manner, and S. 1097 provides the needed authorization for continued Federal participation in the Calfed program. 

We are going back to a situation that existed without the authorization. We will go back to the situation that existed prior to 1994, 

when the Calfed Program was authorized, where the many Federal 

agencies that had a role in regulating water in the State of California—the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of 

Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service—were all taking divergent views of what should be done. As Senator Feinstein indicated, among the primary purposes of the Calfed Program were to 

put all of these agencies under one umbrella, where they could 

move forward together. 

Today, because of the lack of authorization for the Calfed Program, many of the agencies are no longer acting as full partners 

in the Calfed Program. In particular, the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers will play vital roles in 

37

the development of a balanced Calfed Program, and the authorization provided by S. 1097 is critical to bringing them back under the 

Calfed umbrella. 

At this point, I would like to, again reiterate our support for S. 

1097. I think that S. 1097, or the Calfed Program, is a model that 

could be used by other States who have similar competing needs 

for water. It is a model of cooperation. And because it attempts to 

address the needs of all water interests in a balanced manner, it 

has the potential of being highly successful. 

And, again, I thank the committee, or the subcommittee, for 

hearing my testimony. I would request that it accept my written 

testimony in the record. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We will do that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Birmingham follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, GENERAL MANAGER/GENERAL COUNSEL, WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, FRESNO, CA 

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to 

testify regarding S. 1097, the California Bay-Delta Authorization Act (Act), introduced by Senator Feinstein to authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. My name 

is Thomas Birmingham, and I the General Manager/General Counsel of Westlands 

Water District (‘‘Westlands’’). At the outset, I want to state that Westlands strongly 

supports S. 1097 and extend to Senator Feinstein Westlands’ appreciation for her 

introduction of this legislation. The enactment of S. 1097 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. Its passage is of great importance to the 

people of California, indeed 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 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. 

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. Crops grown in Westlands include almonds, apples, 

apricots, asparagus, broccoli, cantaloupes, table grapes, wine grapes, lettuce, tomatoes, and cotton. 

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. 

Farmers in Westlands benefited from the vision and foresight of prior Californians 

and federal officials who planned, designed, and constructed the Central Valley 

Project and the State Water Project. Among these visionaries were the California 

Department of Water Resource engineers who wrote 1957 California Water Plan. 

They observed:

California is presently faced with problems of a highly critical nature the 

need for further control, protection, conservation, and distribution of her most 

vital resource water. While these problems are not new, having been existent 

since the advent of the first white settlers, never before have they reached such 

widespread and serious proportions. Their critical nature stems not only from 

the unprecedented recent growth in population, industry, and agriculture in a 

semiarid state, but also from the consequences of a long period during which 

the construction of water conservation works has not kept pace with the inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
38

creased need for additional water. Unless corrective action is taken—and taken 

immediately—the consequences may be disastrous. 

Today, the future agricultural, urban, and industrial growth of California 

hinges on a highly important decision, which is well within the power of the 

people to make. We can move forward with a thriving economy by pursuing a 

vigorous and progressive water development planning and construction program; or we can allow our economy to stagnate, perhaps even retrogress, by 

adopting a complacent attitude and leaving each district, community, agency or 

other entity to secure its own water supply as best it can with small regard to 

the needs of others. The choice of these alternatives is clear. 

The need for coordinated planning on a statewide basis has long been realized. Comprehensive plans have been formulated and reported upon in the past, 

and noteworthy accomplishments have been achieved by local enterprise and 

private and public agencies. But despite the great water development projects 

construed in the past, California’s water problems continue to grow day by day.

Today, the people of California are faced with an identical problem. Since the 

California Water Plan was written in 1957, the population of the state has grown 

from 14 million to over 35 million people, and the Department of Water Resources 

projects that by the year 2020, the population will exceed 50 million people. Yet, 

except for the efforts of a few local agencies, like Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, and Contra Costa Water District 

virtually no new storage has been constructed. Stated succinctly, California is attempting to maintain the state’s economy with water infrastructure has changed little from the 1960s. It is inadequate to meet the existing demands of the state, let 

alone accommodate inevitable growth. The CALFED Program is designed to address 

the immediate need to construct new water conveyance and storage facilities and 

provide essential tools to better manage California’s water resources, while at the 

same time restoring and enhancing the Bay-Delta watershed. 

Westlands views the CALFED Program from a perspective that is substantially 

different than most water agencies in the state. Over the course of the last 12 years 

Westlands, along with other agencies on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley that 

contract with the United States to receive water from the Central Valley Project, 

has experienced chronic water shortages, even in wet hydrologic periods. These 

shortages are the result of the implementation of the federal Endangered Species 

Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which was passed by Congress 

and signed into law by former President George Bush in October 1992. 

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; 

(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 was 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 farmers 

who 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. Indeed, 

the reliability of water supplies for these contractors, including Westlands, went 

from 92% on average in 1991 to 50% under the regulatory baseline described in the 

CALFED Record of Decision. 

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.’’ In that document Governor Davis and Secretary Babbitt correctly noted that Westlands and 

other San Joaquin Valley agricultural water contractors had been ‘‘disproportionately affected by recent regulatory actions,’’ and they described a number of actions 

39

1Parenthetically, we take note of the encouraging results in recently published engineering 

reports that are part of the Integrated Storage Investigation of In-Delta Storage. These reports 

generally conclude that the project is technically feasible. We hope that the CALFED Program 

will move to the next logical step of preparing a proposal to develop the project that reflects 

its benefits and that is acceptable to all participating parties. 

that would restore, over both the short-term and the long-term, these contractors’ 

water supplies. 

During the first three years of Stage 1 of the CALFED Program the water supplies of Westlands and other south-of-Delta Central Valley Project agricultural 

water service contractors have been restored to a significant degree. But the viability of agriculture in this region is still at risk because of inadequate water supplies. 

Implementation of the actions that will provide long-term benefits to these contractors will require the continued commitment of the federal government to the 

CALFED Program. These actions include construction of an intertie between the 

California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal and implementation of the South 

Delta Improvement Program, which will increase pumping at the Harvey O. Banks 

Pumping Plant to 8500 cubic feet per second and provide water quality improvements and other benefits for in-Delta water users. 

There are numerous reasons the federal government has a prominent role in implementing CALFED Program. First, the United States Bureau of Reclamation operates the Central Valley Project, the largest water supply project in California. In 

addition, other federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Army Corp of Engineers, play a role in regulating the operations of the Central Valley Project or the State Water Project and will play a role in restoring water supply 

reliability to agencies that rely on water diverted from the Delta. These federal 

agencies were full partners in the creation of the CALFED Program in 1994 because, in part, they understood that a successful program to accomplish restoration 

of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, improve water quality, and restore water supply reliability would require a coordinated effort. 

California has many different water needs: water for restoration for our environment; water for cities; and water for farms. If these needs are going to be met there 

must be programs for water conservation, recycling and desalination. Water quality 

must be improved. And of equal importance, we need new water storage, both 

groundwater and surface, and improved water conveyance. The CALFED Program 

was designed to meet all of these needs in an evenhandedly manner. S. 1097 provides the needed authorization for continued federal participation in the CALFED 

Program. 

Of great importance to Westlands, S. 1097 explicitly requires balanced implementation of the CALFED Program. Key to maintaining that balance is the on-going 

consideration of surface water storage projects.1 The bill addresses Westlands’ fear 

that environmental projects not needing authorization would sail smoothly ahead, 

while storage projects lacking Congressional approval would languish; it includes a 

provision requiring the Secretary of the Interior to annually certify that the 

CALFED Program is progressing in a balanced manner among all of its components. 

If the Program is found to be out of balance, the bill would require that the Secretary revise the schedule. 

The CALFED Record of Decision has been correctly characterized as ‘‘CALFED’s 

road map.’’ The Record of Decision sets forth commitments to attend to the water 

needs of all Californians, cities, farmers, and environmentalists. S. 1097 would approve the CALFED Record of Decision as the basic policy framework for future 

state-federal cooperation on California water management, while not modifying the 

federal agencies’ obligations to implement federal law. 

Finally, S. 1097 provides federal resources for the implementation of the CALFED 

Program in a fiscally prudent manner. The bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget showing the federal funding of each 

of the different agencies, and it sets forth a specific list of the projects to be funded 

and how much each would receive.

• The bill authorizes $102 million for planning and feasibility studies for water 

storage projects—and an additional $77 million for conveyance. • The bill authorizes $100 million for ecological restoration. This means improving fish passages, restoring streams, rivers and habitats and improving water 

quality. • The bill authorizes $153 million for water conservation and recycling. • The bill authorizes up to $95 million for local California communities to develop 

plans and projects to improve their water supplies. • The bill authorizes $50 million for watershed planning and assistance. • The bill authorizes $70 million for improved levee stability. 

40

• The bill authorizes $75 million for the environmental water account, which purchases available water for environmental and other purposes.

Stated succinctly, S. 1097 was carefully crafted to be consistent with the balance 

reflected in the CALFED Record of Decision, and its implementation will assure 

continued improvement in water supply, water quality, and environmental restoration to the benefit of California and the nation. Westlands encourages the Committee and the Senate to act quickly to pass this important legislation. Madame 

Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions 

that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham. 

Mr. Gastelum, welcome to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD GASTELUM, CEO, METROPOLITAN 

WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Mr. GASTELUM. Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, thank you 

for this opportunity. 

I’d like to begin by observing that this is not the first time that 

Senator Murkowski, from the great State of Alaska, has played a 

key leadership role on Calfed. And speaking of California, we’d like 

to thank both of them for their contributions. 

I have submitted detailed written testimony in support of S. 

1097, and ask that it be included in the formal record of today’s 

proceedings. 

Senator, I noted that you asked four questions at the beginning 

of the hearing. I would like to augment our testimony and specifically respond to each of those questions. 

From a southern California perspective, I’d like to focus in this 

hearing on a few key points. California is organized, forward-thinking, and progressive in its water management because we’ve 

learned from our experience. California, in general, and southern 

California, in particular, have stepped up to the new reality of 

water management that most of the country will face as the 21st 

century proceeds and the pressure on our water resources becomes 

more complex. Our example will be useful to the rest of the country 

in many ways, and we need the Federal Government to play its 

role and do its part. 

Today, Metropolitan serves water from the State Water Project 

and the Colorado River to almost 18 million people in urban southern California. And through conservation and an emphasis on increasing local water resources, we do it with about the same 

amount of water that we served to 5 million less people in the early 

1980’s. Tomorrow, that number will grow, and our job is to continue to be reliable in the face of numerous challenges, including 

meeting California’s commitment to live with its basic Colorado 

River water allocation, a rapidly growing list of new water-quality 

standards, and real limitations on the capacity of the State Water 

Project and the Central Valley Project to meet their water supply 

and water-quality contract obligations to Metropolitan and many 

others. 

From a distance, it may appear that California has insurmountable problems—natural disasters, economic issues, our State’s 

unique personality, and others. While these may certainly present 

difficulties, there has never been a better time in our ongoing effort 

to manage our water quality and quantity. Never have California’s 

41

water stakeholders been more in concert, and never before have we 

had more tools for effective management in place. With the completion of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, after long years 

of conflict, we have added to the foundation of living within our 

Colorado River apportionment and assuring the other States’ interest. The foundation began with southern California’s integrated resources plan in the early 1990’s. 

I would submit, as proof of this assertion, more than the signing 

of an agreement, the QSA, or growing recognition throughout the 

country of our resource plans, I offer the fact that when the Department of the Interior cut Metropolitan’s Colorado River water 

supply by 60 percent in January of this year, we fully complied 

with the Department’s order and met all customer demands, all 

during a record year of drought and even with the added demand 

of the current firestorm. 

We did it because our plan provides for a balanced and diverse 

set of resources and facilities to avoid over-reliance on any single 

source of supply. And an immediate example of how this strategy 

is working is our ability to provide water from our reservoirs, at 

no cost to local, State, and Federal agencies, in the effort to fight 

the southern California fires. Tankers are able to get access to 

three or four of our reservoirs that have water in them because of 

this program, to be able to deal with that emergency. 

So on that basis, both the QSA and Calfed reflect today’s new 

fundamental reality, that water-supply reliability can best be 

achieved through a diverse and balanced set of actions, including 

storage, conservation, reclamation, and reuse and desalination, 

while ensuring environmental protection and enhancement. This 

diverse strategy toward developing our water resources requires cooperation on many levels. Calfed and partnership between the 

State of California and the Federal Government are essential. 

S. 1097 authorizes the Federal agencies to participate and provides Federal resources for implementation of Calfed. Local agencies in the State of California are investing billions of dollars, much 

of it through voter-approved bonds, to assure the success of Calfed. 

Unfortunately, the Federal share has lagged considerably behind. 

While none of the California stakeholders expect this to be a Federal program with a majority share coming from the Federal Government, some Federal funding and Federal participation are a 

must. The country will benefit from this participation, too, in the 

form of technology advances and decision-making models that can 

be applied in other States facing the same challenge. 

Metropolitan is a strong proponent of cost share for benefits received from water-management programs. The success of a major 

complex public process, such as Calfed Program, rests ultimately in 

perceptions of fairness, that those who benefit from the implementation help pay for those actions in reasonable proportion to the 

benefits received, and that those who pay should be assured that 

they will receive appropriate benefits. 

In southern California today, we have spent billions of dollars to 

be able to effect the strategy that Senator Feinstein outlined, backing off from imports in dry years and being able to take advantage, 

consistent with a Calfed Program, in wet years, and put that in 

storage. We have increased, in southern California, our storage 

42

from what we had in the early 1990’s tenfold, and not a single Federal dollar has been used in that process. We are fully committed, 

in California, to pay our fair share of the costs. 

In conclusion, let me reiterate that we do support S. 1097, and 

Mr. Calvert’s bill in the House. We commend you for holding this 

hearing, other Senators and Senate staff that have offered advice 

to strengthen this legislation, and we commend Senator Feinstein 

for her continued leadership. She is truly recognized throughout 

our State for her expertise in water resources and record of 

achievement in bringing consensus to solve some of our most complex and difficult problems. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gastelum follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD GASTELUM, CEO,

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding S. 1097, the California Bay-Delta Authorization Act (Act), 

introduced by Senator Feinstein to implement the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. My 

name is Ronald Gastelum. I serve as Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). Metropolitan is a supplemental water supplier for the Southern California regional economy. We serve a 

population of more than 17 million people and an economy that generates an annual 

gross domestic product of nearly $700 billion and provides about 8 million jobs. Metropolitan has been constructively engaged in the CALFED process since its conception and we strongly support the balanced policy direction of CALFED. 

METROPOLITAN SUPPORTS S. 1097

Metropolitan strongly supports S. 1097 and urges its passage by this subcommittee and the full Senate at the earliest possible date. Recently, California finalized the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) that after 8 years of arduous negotiations lays a foundation to live within our long-term apportionment of 4.4 

million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Similarly, the CALFED BayDelta program is designed to provide essential tools to better manage California’s 

available water resources. CALFED provides a wide range of modern management 

tools to improve water supply reliability, enhance water quality, restore the environment, and protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. 

Both the QSA and CALFED reflect today’s new fundamental reality that water 

supply reliability can only be achieved through a diverse and balanced set of management actions that enhance regional management efforts, improve water quality, 

and promote environmental restoration. There are no single project silver bullets in 

our planning. Rather, success will be achieved through cooperative efforts based on 

credible science to guide decision-making and financial partnerships among the 

beneficiaries. Already, urban Southern California meets 53 percent of its water demands through conservation, water recycling, and local clean water management 

programs. 

In California, the state government and local public agencies have committed unprecedented resources to make the CALFED program a success. In Southern California alone, we are investing more than $8 billion of our ratepayers’ money to implement the Southern California Integrated Resources Plan, which in turn compliments and helps meet the goals of the CALFED Program. Similarly, the voters 

of California have overwhelmingly approved more than $6 billion in bonds to implement CALFED and related programs. Among the agricultural and urban public 

water supply agencies and in the business community, CALFED and S. 1097 enjoy 

virtually unanimous support. 

But, the federal government has a significant responsibility to help implement 

CALFED as well. The federal agencies, including the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, have been partners since 1994 in bipartisan efforts to develop 

the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The federal government operates the largest 

water supply project in California, the Central Valley Project, and it promulgates 

numerous regulations that constrain water supply projects throughout the state in 

order to protect the environment. By helping California better manage its water resources, S. 1097 provides security for all other western states. It further will provide 

43

interstate and international benefits by increasing populations of salmon and other 

anadromous fish on the west coast and by improving habitat for migratory wildfowl 

on the Pacific Flyway. Madam Chairman, S. 1097 is good for California, it is good 

for the western states, and it is good for the nation. We urge that it be passed by 

this subcommittee and the full Senate as soon as practical. 

CALFED IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

S. 1097 would facilitate the implementation of measures both in the near-term 

and longer-term that will provide substantial water supply, water quality, and environmental benefits. To fully appreciate the significance of the CALFED Program 

that S. 1097 would implement, it is useful to consider the Program in historical context. 

Barely a decade ago, the California water management system was in utter chaos. 

After decades of neglect and loss of extensive habitat, key fisheries were in decline. 

The environmental movement, responding to precipitous declines in fishery populations, had successfully sought regulatory protections to stop further loss of habitat 

and potentially damaging operational practices of the state’s largest water projects, 

the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP). Wild 

and Scenic Rivers legislation passed by the California legislature in 1972 removed 

from consideration on-stream dam sites in the north coast mountains of California—

delivering a crippling blow to the 1957 California Water Plan that then provided 

the backbone strategy for meeting the long-term water needs of a growing state. 

Similarly, passage of federal and state Endangered Species Acts, the Clean Water 

Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and other legislation and 

regulations began constraining CVP and SWP project operations in an effort to protect fisheries. 

If these actions were beneficial for fisheries and we believe that they were, they 

also posed formidable challenges for the numerous public agencies responsible for 

providing water supplies to the growing California economy. By the mid 1990s, more 

than 2 million acre-feet (MAF) of project yield had been reallocated from CVP and 

SWP contractors through these efforts to restore fisheries. For SWP contractors, 

such as Metropolitan, the reliability of project supplies was far short of the promise 

in our contracts. While the State had a contractual obligation to provide full ‘‘Table 

A’’ supplies to SWP contractors regardless of hydrology, the actual reliability of the 

SWP by the mid 1990s was far below contract commitments. 

During wetter years, the SWP is still able to provide a fairly significant amount 

of water. Based on the historical record and modeling studies of the California Department of Water Resources, during the wetter half of water years, the SWP is 

able to supply 80 percent or more of full contract commitments. But, during the driest years—especially the driest third of years in the historical record—actions to 

protect the environment pose a substantial risk of water supply shortage for the 

California economy. Under worst-case circumstances (a repeat of water year 1977 

or 1991), the SWP contractors expect to receive only a 20 percent supply. During 

an extended drought, such as occurred from 1987 to 1992, SWP supplies will average only about 40 percent of full contract amounts. 

Inevitably, the prolonged drought of 1987 to 1992 combined with a paucity of adequate water management tools resulted in significant costs for both the California 

economy and environment. Toward the end of the drought, water rationing was 

widespread throughout California and corresponding economic hardships were significant. Similarly, the environment was hard-hit and fishery populations declined 

at alarming rates. Change was imperative. And we developed that change in large 

part through the CALFED Program and by making coordinated local investments 

in Southern California in conservation, recycling, storage, short-term water transfers, and desalination. 

ELEMENTS OF THE CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

One of the key challenges of CALFED is to address this fundamental dilemma: 

How can we restore water supply reliability for the California economy and improve 

water quality while maintaining our commitment to continued restoration of the environment? The CALFED Record of Decision (ROD), in essence, provides a blue 

print for the accomplishment of this formidable task. 

In many respects, Southern California provides a case study of the effectiveness 

of the diversified water management strategy embodied in the ROD. In 1991 a 

major reduction in SWP supplies resulted in mandatory rationing and economic disruption in Southern California. In sharp contrast, Metropolitan has maintained 

water supply reliability for the Southern California economy in recent years. Despite 

a reduction in SWP supplies in 2001 similar to 1991 and an abrupt decline in ColoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
44

rado River supplies this year as well, Metropolitan continued to meet all the demands of its customers. We have been able to stay reliable because today we rely 

on a diversified set of water management tools and not solely on our contracts for 

imported water supplies. Regional demands for imported water have been reduced 

as a result of major investments in demand management actions, including water 

conservation, recycling, and recovery of contaminated groundwater basins. We have 

also benefited from substantial investments in regional surface and groundwater 

storage. In both 2001 and 2003, Metropolitan was able to turn to voluntary water 

transfers from the Central Valley for additional affordable increases in supply. 

All of these tools are consistent with the policy direction established in the ROD. 

If we are to maintain this success, we must act and act now to assure both nearterm and longer-term success for the CALFED Program. 

By the end of this calendar year, the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) will 

have before it the first major implementation package of the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program. Even before the beginning of the CALFED process, state and local agencies in California were investing vast sums in local resources to increase our commitment to conserve, reclaim and reuse, and desalinate water. But, these local resource measures alone cannot provide sufficient reliability for the California economy. The near-term CALFED implementation package will provide investments in 

the statewide water delivery system, which in combination with local resource investments can provide reliable water supplies for California. The near-term package 

contains elements that significantly protect water supply reliability, improve water 

quality, and provide for the continued restoration of California’s environment. This 

package marks an enormous positive step in the management of California’s water 

resources and environment. 

To improve water supply reliability, the near-term package contains elements to 

improve through-Delta conveyance, including expanding the capacity of the SWP 

Banks Pumping Plant and constructing an intertie between the CVP and SWP systems. The package would also significantly improve operational efficiencies by better 

integrating CVP and SWP operations. These improvements, particularly improvements in through-Delta conveyance, will increase the ability to store water southof-the-Delta during wet periods so that this water can be withdrawn in significant 

quantities during the driest years, thereby relieving dry-year pressure on the Delta 

and competition with other water users. In addition, these physical improvements 

add to the ability to transport conserved water from voluntary sellers upstream of 

the Delta to buyers seeking additional supplies south of the Delta in the increasingly effective California water market consistent with the policy direction of 

CALFED. 

To improve water quality, the near-term package is expected to include several 

project elements jointly recommended by an historic coalition of Delta interests and 

CVP and SWP contractors. These elements include enforceable standards to protect 

water heights, depths, and quality for Delta irrigators; installation of permanent, 

operable barriers and other physical improvements in the central and south Delta; 

and specific actions to improve Delta water quality for in-Delta and export water 

users alike, such as source water quality improvements at Frank’s Tract in the central Delta, agricultural drainage management in the Delta and the San Joaquin 

Valley, and steps to re-circulate water or otherwise increase flows in the San Joaquin River to improve quality in the South Delta and help resolve dissolved oxygen 

problems in the deep-water ship channel near Stockton. 

To protect and restore the environment, the near-term package will include a longterm Environmental Water Account (EWA). The EWA is one of the most innovative 

resource management tools developed in the CALFED Program. The EWA relies on 

market-driven approaches to provide water flows for environmental protection and 

restoration while providing regulatory certainty for water users. Based on the best 

available science, the CALFED near-term implementation package will provide 

EWA with adequate assets and financing to assure the continued restoration of fisheries while we simultaneously implement measures to increase water supply reliability and enhance water quality. 

The near-term package to be implemented in Phase I of the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program represents the most significant step to improve the statewide water management system in a generation. But, over the longer term, many challenges remain. We still must complete studies of additional surface storage facilities and 

move toward implementation of those projects that make economic and environmental sense. We must take further steps to improve water quality for both in-Delta 

and export water users. We must also assure the long-term financing and success 

of the CALFED environmental restoration, Delta levees, and water use efficiency 

programs. 

45

THE ROLE OF THE CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORIZATION ACT

Senator Feinstein’s proposed S. 1097, the California Bay-Delta Authorization Act 

(Act), provides the needed federal participation for the success of the CALFED Program. The Act approves the CALFED ROD as the basic policy framework for future 

state-federal cooperation on California water management. It authorizes the federal 

agencies to participate as voting members in the California Bay-Delta Authority, the 

governance mechanism for CALFED created by the California legislature. Equally 

important, the Act provides federal resources for the implementation of the nearterm CALFED implementation package and for the longer-term success of the Program. 

For the near-term implementation package, the Act provides modest funding for 

increasing the capacity of the SWP Banks pumping plant, constructing the CVPSWP intertie, improving agricultural drainage management, modifying Frank’s 

Tract and other source water quality actions, and implementing re-circulation 

projects to increase flows in the lower San Joaquin River. Over the longer-term, the 

Act provides for a federal cost share to complete studies of CALFED surface storage 

facilities, maintain water use efficiency performance, continue environmental restoration activities, reconstruct and enhance Delta levees, and, importantly, assure 

that state-of-the-art science supports all CALFED decisions and activities. The bottom line is that the Act has been carefully crafted through a bi-partisan effort to 

be consistent with the balance reflected in the CALFED ROD and its implementation will assure continued improvement in water supply, water quality, and environmental restoration to the benefit of California, the western states, and the nation. 

THE BENEFICIARY PAYS PRINCIPLE

Finally, I would like to close this testimony with some observations regarding the 

beneficiary pays principle. Metropolitan is a strong proponent of this principle. The 

ultimate success of a major, complex, public process like the CALFED Bay-Delta 

rests in no small way on perceptions of fairness that those who benefit from the implementation of program actions help pay for those actions in proportion to the benefits received. An important corollary to this principle is that those who pay should 

be assured that they will receive commensurate benefits so they will participate in 

the cost sharing required to implement program actions. But, we are also concerned 

that some will twist the beneficiary pays principle to undermine support for S. 1097. 

It is extremely important to recognize that local agencies and the state of California are investing billions of dollars to assure the success of the CALFED Program. In Southern California, Metropolitan and its member agencies are in the 

process of investing more than $8 billion to implement the Southern California Integrated Resources Program. We have set a course for our ratepayers to pay $2 billion 

to reclaim, reuse, and desalinate brackish water and ocean water; another nearly 

$1 billion to implement water conservation measures; $2 billion to implement the 

QSA; and $3 billion to construct more than 2.5 million acre-feet of additional regional surface and groundwater storage capacity. Similarly, the California voters 

have overwhelmingly approved more than $6 billion in public bonds to finance 

CALFED and related activities: $1 billion in Proposition 204 in 1996 primarily for 

environmental restoration and another $2 billion in Proposition 13 in 2000 and 

more than $3 billion in Proposition 50 in 2002 for water supply, water quality, and 

other CALFED related projects. 

Unfortunately, the federal share of financing CALFED has lagged considerably 

behind the local and state shares. To date, based on CALFED data, during the program’s first three years, the federal government accounts for only about 9 percent 

of CALFED funds and this share is rapidly declining each year. Metropolitan believes that S. 1097 provides a reasonable and fair federal share of CALFED financing for the next few years. S. 1097 helps fund the near-term implementation package that will provide considerable benefits at a very modest cost. It provides funds 

for long-term efforts to improve water efficiency, restore the environment, and improve watersheds. Many of these publicly beneficial activities cannot pencil out 

based solely on local costs and benefits and federal funds are essential for their implementation. 

With regard to larger infrastructure investments, such as additional surface storage, S. 1097 provides $102 million primarily to complete feasibility studies. We submit that this is a sound approach. The CALFED ROD concludes that additional surface and groundwater storage capacity is required to maintain balance between 

water supply, water quality, and the environment over the long-term. However, 

until feasibility studies are completed, beneficiaries are identified, and cost sharing 

agreements are developed, it is not possible to determine which specific projects 

should proceed and how. S. 1097 makes no final commitment and does not provide 

46

sufficient funds to construct any project, it merely provides the resources to answer 

key questions so that we can determine in the future how to best add to California’s 

water storage capacity and meet our water quality and environmental goals. 

Given the benefits to the federal CVP project, the contributions of federal regulations to the problems being remedied, the interstate and international benefits of 

some CALFED actions, and the general public benefits of other CALFED actions, 

Metropolitan believes that S. 1097 provides an effective and fiscally appropriate vehicle to enable California to manage water resources in a manner that will provide 

long-term stability in the Western United States. We commend Senator Feinstein 

for her leadership in introducing S. 1097. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Guy, your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. GUY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Mr. GUY. I thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein. 

Let me also join the chorus in admiring the work that you all 

have done, and particularly the patience that you’ve had, Senator 

Feinstein. But I think, more important than the patience, we sure 

admire your perseverance and your determination, and please retain those characteristics, because the California water community 

needs you, and California as a whole needs you. 

I represent Northern California Water Association. It’s the area 

north of the Bay-Delta. It’s the area—it’s largely a rural area, but, 

of course, a large bulk of the water supply in California comes from 

this particular area. This is not just a normal rural area, it’s a 

combination of agriculture, it is integrated with a series of at least 

five national wildlife refuges, many State wildlife management 

areas. 

You have what are now considered some of the world-renowned 

salmon restoration projects in this region. And this is all integrated 

into a water-management program that I think is very important, 

and I believe that S. 1097 will help facilitate that and continue the 

progress that we have made in the Sacramento Valley to advance 

this integrated program. And for that reason, we support S. 1097 

enthusiastically. 

This integrated program will not only meet the needs in the local 

rural areas—again, for farms, for refuges, for the fish—but it will 

also, in our view, if we can manage the resource properly, it can 

also meet needs in the Bay-Delta as well as needs in the rest of 

the State. And this has led, this integrated program, to several 

partnerships that I think are worth noting. 

I noted, Senator Feinstein, one of your three critical points was 

partnerships, and you mentioned the State and Federal partnerships, and those are, needless to say, very important, but there’s 

also a series of local partnerships that have evolved that I think 

are really giving Calfed a large boost, and one of those, most notably, is the Sacramento Valley Water Management Program, which 

resolved the so-called Phase 8 proceedings before the Bay-Delta. 

I have several of my partners here at the table today that have 

exerted tremendous leadership to make this happen, and it’s really 

the first time in the State of California, I believe, that North and 

South have worked together to, again, meet these ideals of meeting 

the water needs of all of the different factions. It’s also important 

47

because it’s a rural/urban partnership, which is very difficult. And 

we are working very well together, and there’s a lot of work to be 

done, but we have started to do that. And I believe that Calfed, the 

Bay-Delta Authority, and S. 1097 are all very important in helping 

us advance those partnerships, and vice versa. So we sure laud the 

bill. 

And, of course, all of the things that are in your bill, whether it 

be water conservation, water-use efficiency, whether it be the fishpassage improvements, the water-quality improvements, and then, 

of course, surface storage, including Sites Reservoir and enlarged 

Shasta, we believe, are all critical components to advancing, not 

only this integrated program, but the partnerships that are so critical to making this process work. So, again, we think the bill is 

very good in that regard. 

I will also say that I believe the balance feature that you mentioned, I believe, is really the key to making this program work; 

and not only balance across the different program areas, as mentioned, but I think the provision in the bill that talks about balance 

across geographic regions is very important, because water tends to 

be very parochial in nature. People look at their own particular region. And it doesn’t matter, in some ways, if all the program elements are balanced, if a particular region does not feel that they 

are not being benefitted. And I think that that is a real key provision in this particular bill. 

With that said, I do think that there are some coordination 

issues that could be improved upon. I think Tom Birmingham 

touched on some of those, but I think improved coordination 

amongst the Federal and State agencies, as well as a recognition 

that the Calfed Program is a whole and must proceed as a whole, 

I think, is really important as we move forward. 

So I will close in just saying, again, we support S. 1097, congratulate you and the continued efforts of Senator Feinstein and 

also Congressman Calvert across the building, and look forward to 

working with you two to make it work. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID J. GUY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Dear Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Guy. I am 

the Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association (NCWA). 

NCWA supports S. 1097 and strongly believes that, with the recommendations described below, this legislation will help provide water and environmental security 

for Northern California and the rest of the state. 

NCWA is a geographically diverse organization, extending from California’s Coast 

Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and nearly 180 miles from Redding to Sacramento. 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 supply 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 

48

resource to California and the nation, and there is much at stake in how we implement the numerous ecosystem restoration and water management actions. 

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 will soon 

be constructing 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 Northern California. 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. 

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 Program, and the ensuing integrated water management program, avoided the extremely contentious Phase 8 BayDelta water rights proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board 

(SWRCB). 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 

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 Program and the integrated water 

management program focus on meeting the water supply demands within the Sacramento Valley during all year types, both now and into the future. Northern California water users believe that, once the full demands within the Sacramento Valley 

are met, this integrated program will help make water supplies available for use 

in and beyond the Bay-Delta to meet water quality standards, and provide for export water users in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, the Central Coast, 

and as assets for the Environmental Water Account (EWA) and other environmental 

programs. 

Although there are many components in the integrated water management plan 

for the Sacramento Valley, the components involving surface storage draw the most 

attention and deserve further elaboration. Sites reservoir and enlarged Shasta are 

important parts of water management in the Sacramento Valley and are critical to 

addressing and solving CALFED problems. We believe that a great mistake will be 

made and an opportunity will be lost if the feasibility of a storage project (like Sites) 

is viewed in a traditional fashion, with the ‘‘yield’’ of the reservoir merely divided 

up among a pre-identified group of ‘‘beneficiaries.’’

We have an opportunity to view Sites in a manner different from the traditional 

storage reservoir. This stems, in part, from its location within or adjacent to the 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and districts within the Tehama-Colusa 

Canal Authority (TCCA). Initially, this allows the reservoir to be filled through the 

conveyance of water into the reservoir pursuant to a wheeling agreement with GCID 

for use of GCID’s Main Canal and/or potentially through a wheeling agreement with 

the BOR or others for use of the Tehama-Colusa Canal. 

In addition, how one operates Sites should take into consideration opportunities 

presented by the fact that it can be integrated with local interests within the Sacramento Valley so that it is operated and managed in conjunction with local interests’ direct diversion water rights, other surface water resources, including storage 

rights within Shasta Reservoir, and groundwater resources. Proceeding with integrated water management will provide direct and indirect benefits. These direct and 

indirect benefits include securing independent, reliable and certain supplies of irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I) and environmental water of suitable quality 

for reasonable beneficial uses by local interests within the Sacramento Valley. They 

will also provide benefits to the environment, including improvements in Delta 

water quality, the availability of water for the EWA, in management flexibility that 

will be made available in the Sacramento Valley, and a more dependable water supply for water users within the Delta as well as water users south of the Delta. 

49

The ability to operate in a flexible manner to maximize system-wide benefits is 

not unique to GCID or the TCCA; it is a shared ability that could be exercised by 

other entities within the Sacramento Valley. 

From the very beginning of the CALFED process, indeed, before the Record of Decision (ROD) was issued, Northern California interests have been fairly clear that, 

in general, we were not responsible, in fact or in law, for the problems that exist 

in the Bay-Delta. In our view, those problems were created by others. As a consequence, we can only support solutions that solve problems in a manner that does 

not harm Northern California interests. We cannot support and will oppose solutions that seek to solve problems created by others at the expense of Northern California. 

I hasten to add that from the onset, Northern California has nonetheless been 

willing to work with CALFED to seek solutions that meet the test of no redirected 

adverse impacts while advancing substantially actions and programs that would improve the Bay-Delta. We are still willing to participate in these programs and, in 

fact, have initiated actions that, when completed, will substantially advance the 

CALFED goals. 

I have read and am familiar with S. 1097 as well as with the CALFED ROD. I 

have followed CALFED actions and activities closely since August 28, 2000. With 

the foregoing in mind, I first offer comments on the program activities in S. 1097 

followed by comments and suggestions on the administration and management of 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

I. Integrated Water Management (§ 3(c) (3)(F).) 

As discussed above, Northern California has been at the forefront of integrated 

water management and supports the provisions of S. 1097 to advance this cause. 

This integrated program for the Sacramento Valley will help ‘‘carry out Stage 1 of 

the Record of Decision.’’

II. Specific Program Activities 

As previously mentioned, the integrated program for the Sacramento Valley contains several important components that will help advance the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program. This includes:

• Fish Passage Improvements (§ 3(c)(3)(G)(iii).) 

• Proposed Sites reservoir and enlarged Shasta (§ 3(c)(A)(ii)(I).) 

• Water Use Efficiency and System Improvement Projects (§ 3(c)(3)(c).) 

• Water Quality Improvements (§ 3(c)(3)(I) 

• Water Transfers (§ 3(c)(3)(D).) 

• Enlarged Shasta (§ 3(c)(A)(i)(I).) 

• Watershed Management (§ 3(c)(3)(H).) 

III. Administration and Management 

With respect to the administration and management of the CALFED program, we 

offer the following suggestions. 

A. Balance (§ (5)(b); 3(b))—The concept of ‘‘balance’’ is critical to a successful 

CALFED. S. 1097 deals with this issue by first requiring the Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, to annually certify that the Program is ‘‘progressing in a 

balanced manner which allows all program elements to be advanced.’’ Without these 

types of procedures there is little question in my mind that certain parts of the program (i.e., water supply storage and conveyance projects) will lag behind other 

CALFED programs and projects and, indeed, may never be completed. In addition 

to program balance, the provision in subpart (b)(9) is critical to assure that there 

is ‘‘progress in achieving benefits in all geographic regions covered by the Program.’’

B. Administration of Activities—There has been a fairly large disconnect between 

the whole purpose and need for CALFED and the way regulatory agencies approach 

their missions. 

The CALFED program is multi-dimensional in nature and not only evaluates, on 

a programmatic level, numerous alternative approaches but, in light of the significant water related problems at issue, in fact incorporates multiple elements which 

in the normal context might be considered, in themselves, as alternatives, one to 

the other. In other words, the problems dealt with by CALFED are so significant 

that looking at one option as if it were in opposition to another is counter-productive 

to meeting CALFED goals. 

While all of the planning and actions associated with CALFED contemplate this 

integrated approach toward water management, regulatory agencies, particularly 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 

Agency, adhere to an overly rigid application of, for example, the Clean Water Act 

section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. This requires one to view each of the 

50

1 16 U.S.C. § 803j(2) does provide FERC with a process and criteria that it must follow if it 

determines that recommended conditions will be inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the Act. 

CALFED potential solutions not as an integrated whole, but rather as alternatives, 

one to the other. As a consequence, the ability to maximize benefits through fullintegrated water management is lost in favor of rigid analyses developed to deal 

with situations dissimilar to CALFED. 

The law itself does not require this rigid application of regulatory standards. However, it probably requires specific Congressional direction and guidance (contemplated in existing law) to make certain that regulatory review occurs in an appropriate fashion. Section 3(b) alludes to this quest for a fully integrated water management solution that will not be hampered by an overly rigid regulatory mind-set. 

This goal might be further advanced through additional language in Section 4 such 

as the following: 

‘‘Pursuant to the provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 1344(r), information of the effects, if 

any, of a discharge of dredged or fill material, including consideration of the guidelines developed under 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)(1), will be included in the environmental 

impact statement undertaken pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for any CALFED project or program requiring federal authorization and 

such environmental impact statement will be submitted to Congress prior to the authorization of the project or the appropriation of funds for the construction of the 

project.’’

C. Agency Coordination (Section 4(a))—A fundamental problem that was identified early in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary process was the multiple statutory, regulatory and agency coverage (overlap) of critical issues. Indeed, the whole 

concept of CALFED was borne out of the unintended adverse consequences of uncoordinated activities conducted by multiple agencies seeking to address the same 

problem. 

In a critical way CALFED has, in fact, worked to focus attention on a coordinated 

set of goals and actions. Nonetheless, an important element still must be addressed. 

While agencies work, in part, within CALFED, at critical times they remove themselves from that process and retreat to their individual regulatory processes. Thus, 

critical CALFED programs and projects are still required to scale multiple, duplicative, regulatory processes which add costs and time to that which would otherwise 

be necessary and which consequently challenge the feasibility of any proposed 

project or program. 

The solution, we believe, is not in asking any regulatory body to abrogate its responsibility to another or in the modification of any underlying statutory program. 

Instead, we propose a ‘‘regulatory streamlining’’ or ‘‘regulatory coordination’’ process 

in which all project elements or a program are evaluated at one time and, in this 

context, all regulatory requirements are also made known (along with mitigation 

measures) at one time. In this manner duplicative and/or inconsistent regulatory 

mandates can be immediately identified, evaluated and dealt with; and a project or 

program proponent can understand, at that time, what its total requirements/obligations will be. In this way intelligent decisions on how to proceed or how not to proceed can be made with the knowledge of all relevant facts. 

This process is not unique. The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq., provides for similar procedures associated with the licensing under that Act. Regulatory 

and other relevant agencies, under the provisions of the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) are required to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) and the project proponents of all of the regulatory conditions that must be 

included within a license. FERC, in turn, must include in any license issued under 

the Federal Power Act appropriate conditions based upon what is provided by those 

other regulatory agencies. See 16 U.S.C. § 805j(1); Mine Reclamation Corporation, et 

al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al., 30 Fed.3d 1519, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 

1994). There is no absolute veto of any regulatory requirement, but merely an ‘‘all 

cards up’’ understanding of what will need to be done in order to proceed with a 

project.1 Not only does this save a great deal of time, but it also allows the project 

proponents to make an intelligent business decision about whether and how to proceed. Id. 

To accomplish these purposes, we propose language such as the following to add 

to § 4(a): 

‘‘The Secretary working with the Governor shall develop a regulatory coordination 

and streamlining program in which all permits, licenses or other approvals associated with the permitting approval of projects under this Act will take place. This 

regulatory coordination or streamlining program shall insure that all Federal and 

California agencies’ respective regulatory programs will take place at one time and 

51

that they will be coordinated in a manner that reduces or eliminates process- or 

substantive-related duplication and inconsistencies, thereby reducing costs and time 

that would otherwise be required; Provided, that nothing herein is intended nor 

should it be construed to affect the substantive regulatory requirements that may 

be applicable.’’

As in many situations, the problem faced by project proponents is not the need 

to comply with appropriate environmental obligations but the problem created by 

multiple, duplicate or inconsistent regulations. This problem is particularly troublesome in a situation as complex as the one presented by CALFED. The type of language proposed here, while not fully addressing all of the potential problems, will 

go a long way in remedying the situation that otherwise exists. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the CALFED program and the 

important water issues facing California.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

I appreciate the comments from each of you on the panel here 

today, and thank you for joining us here at the committee. 

I have individual questions that are more specific to each of you 

that will be presented so that you can respond in writing. But just 

a few general questions, and I’ll just present them to you as a 

panel, and if you can give me your very brief comments. 

But recognizing that you are the panel of stakeholders and from 

certainly different interests, whether they be metropolitan or rural 

or north or south, I’d like to hear just very briefly and very succinctly what aspects of this legislation are most important to your 

specific organization. 

Mr. Wright, let’s put you on the hot-seat first. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Sure. Speaking from the perspective of the agencies 

themselves, the number one issue is to cement the State/Federal 

partnership and to avoid a perception that this is a State-driven 

program and that the agencies aren’t a hundred percent with us 

in putting this thing together. 

Money’s important, absolutely. But first comes the commitment 

to the program itself. So that’s number one. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Ms. McPeak. 

Ms. MCPEAK. The business community would echo that. Without 

the Federal Government being a full partner, there is continuing 

uncertainty and the lack of coalescing of all the agencies working 

together. That spells probably unreliability in our future water supply. The business community fully embraces all components of 

Calfed. We know we have to move on all of them together. That 

will be possible only if all of the Federal and State agencies are at 

the table. Federal agencies need to have the enthusiastic endorsement, reaffirmation of Congress. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Graff. 

Mr. GRAFF. I guess I would answer your question this way, that 

the matter that is of most concern to us is that additional commitments of water to users, particularly not paid for by users, not 

come at the expense of the environments that have just recently 

begun to respond to the benefits of congressional legislation and 

other actions past. Let me just say that those environments should 

include the Trinity River, which is in my written remarks, but I 

did not mention in my oral testimony. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Birmingham. 

52

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. The issue that has been critical to agricultural 

water districts on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley is balanced implementation of the Calfed Program. There are three provisions in S. 1097 that will promote balanced implementation of 

the program, in fact, will mandate it. First, the Secretary is required to annually certify—the Secretary of the Interior is required 

to annually certify that the programs are moving forward in a balanced manner; and if not, revise the schedule for implementation. 

Second, S. 1097 contains a provision that requires that the Secretary report on progress being made on each of the elements of the 

program, including water-supply reliability, water-quality improvement, levy restoration, and ecosystem restoration. 

And then, finally, the provisions of the bill that prescribe how 

much will be spent for each program, how much will be authorized 

for each program, will ensure that as the program moves forward, 

it will do so in a balanced manner, each element of the program 

being linked to others. And so I think that those are the three provisions of the bill that, from our perspective, are most important. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Gastelum. 

Mr. GASTELUM. As I’ve looked at this bill on a number of occasions, I’ve thought, well, there might some improvements here or 

there that I would like to make from the perspective of urban 

southern California. But we are very pleased with this bill, because 

it represent progress. It represents the principles that we most 

want to see happen in California—cooperation, sound science, 

interagency governmental cooperation. 

What we like, in terms of what would happen for the good in 

southern California particularly, is the water-quality improvements 

that will come with the conveyance actions, with the science-based 

decisions on moving water at particular times of the year that has 

less impact on the environment and allows us to move water into 

storage. All of these things are possible under Calfed, and, in particular, this legislation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Guy. 

Mr. GUY. I believe the most important aspect of the bill is the 

integrated nature of the components, and I think it’s important 

that the bill spells out all of the different components in enough 

detail that people in California can see exactly what is expected of 

this program. And I think it’s that integrated nature of all the separate components, whether it be water-use efficiency, surface storage, off-stream storage, whether it be fish-passage improvements, 

water-quality improvements, all of that in one package, and making sure that there’s balance across those areas and across the geographic regions, is important to the bill. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the distilling in at least a couple of sentences, or maybe a couple of paragraphs or less, so I’m 

going to ask you one more. 

You’ve told me what you like best about it. In your opinion, is 

there anything that needs to be included, added? Mr. Gastelum, 

you’ve pretty much said you like it as it is. But in the opinion—

in your opinion or that of the organizations that you represent, 

what needs to be added to make it work for your perspective, for 

your group of stakeholders? 

53

Mr. Guy. 

Mr. GUY. Well, my written comments, which I hope are in the 

record, spell out a couple of suggestions on that, and I think they 

really get categorized with respect to regulatory and agency coordination. And I think several fairly simple provisions that, again, recognize the Calfed, as a whole, that parts of the program are not 

alternatives to other parts of the program, and that the legislation 

recognize that the Calfed Program is a whole and that all of the 

programs need to be implemented simultaneously, together—or I 

guess that’s redundant—but together in a integrated fashion. I 

think that some language would be very helpful there, and it would 

not be anything significant. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Gastelum, want to add anything? 

Mr. GASTELUM. I would. I think that if we could add anything 

more to this bill, it would be to provide perhaps stronger and clearer direction to the Federal agencies to participate in this process. 

So, money aside, if we could get their full attention and their decision-making process in coordination with the State, that would be 

something to be desired. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Birmingham. 

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. I don’t disagree with what Mr. Gastelum stated, although I think that one of the questions that has been raised 

is, why do we need Calfed authorization if the agencies are already 

authorized to engage in most of the programs that are described? 

And I think that what Mr. Gastelum just stated is the reason that 

we need to have a specific Calfed authorization. 

Frankly, I don’t think that there is anything that I would suggest 

should be added. In drafting the bill, Senator Feinstein and her 

staff were diligent about reaching out to every interest group in the 

California water community and engaging with them to make sure 

that their concerns were addressed. I don’t think that there’s anything in this—I think I can safely say that there are things in the 

Calfed Program that everyone—that somebody would dislike—

there’s something in there for everybody to dislike, but there’s also 

something in there for everybody to love. 

And I think that’s part of the beauty of the program. And the 

beauty of this particular bill is that it is the product of a tremendous effort to ensure that the interests of all of the communities 

were addressed in its crafting. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Graff, do you agree? 

Mr. GRAFF. No. I don’t think I do. I think I’m going to go back 

to testimony of Mr. Raley and just get right to the guts of it. I 

mean, his first major point here in his statement of the administration’s concerns is to say, ‘‘As mentioned, appropriations are unlikely to approve—to approach the $880 million envisioned for 

stage one. Balanced in the program can only be achieved with a realistic expectation of Calfed appropriations.’’

And in light of a scaled-back program, both in terms of Federal 

dollars, and even more so in terms of user dollars, we need to figure out, before we go forward, whether the additional commitments 

of water that the contractors agreed to at Napa are really going to 

54

happen at the expense of the environment. I think that’s the question we have to answer first. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. McPeak. 

Ms. MCPEAK. Unreliability and uncertainty are the death knell 

for investment. So if we’re looking to economic recovery and continuing to retain the employers in California, and in this country, 

as a matter of fact, then there’s got to be certainty within a regulatory framework. And we would never second-guess Senator Feinstein or this committee on getting to the bill. It’s probably based 

on all that we know, as good as it can possibly be. 

Going back a few years, when I sat and we, at the Bay-Delta Advisory Committee, advised on a governance structure for Calfed, 

there were a few principles that we strongly advocated and that 

the business community wanted to see, and that is that everybody 

had to be at the table. If you’ve got some agencies who have the 

ability to absent themselves and do not understand that it is the 

policy and the presumption of the Federal Government that they 

will all work together and work in partnership with the States 

agencies, then that just is greater uncertainty and unreliability in 

that regulatory framework. It will be a dampening force on or factor for attracting investment in California. 

Therefore, what we think would be very salutatory, if it’s possible, is, as Mr. Gastelum has said, strengthen the language as a 

directive and imperative to all of those Federal agencies, that they 

are to participate in full faith, at the highest level, continuously, 

introduce a sense of urgency about implementation, and that there 

must be consultation among them in any—before they take independent action under their authorities. 

In other words, that they’ve got authority to exercise, and it’s 

going to impact any aspect of the Calfed implementation program, 

that they must, in fact, consult one another around that table before taking independent action. I cannot tell you how beneficial 

that would be, nor how much of a shift in paradigm as to how the 

business community usually experiences government. 

There is no substitute for leadership. That’s what this bill is 

about. It’s about creating the momentum that Senator Feinstein 

talked about and registering, very loud and clear, that the Federal 

Government is a full partner in the Calfed implementation. It’s a 

new era. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I’ll just say briefly, because, of course, at the program we don’t take specific positions on bills; we leave that to our 

State and Federal administrations. I should add, though, that we 

did, at the request of Senator Feinstein, work very closely with her 

staff and other members to make sure that the bill was fully consistent with the Calfed plan. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate your responses. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I 

think those were very good questions. 

Mr. Graff, whom I’ve known for at least 30 years, as well—matter of fact, I knew him when he had a little more hair on the top. 

Mr. GRAFF. That’s a long time ago. 

55

Senator FEINSTEIN. On the issue of beneficiary pays, I would call 

the attention to page 34, the Record of Decision, and read one sentence, ‘‘A fundamental philosophy of the Calfed Program is that 

costs should, to the extent possible, be paid by the beneficiaries of 

the program actions.’’

We have replicated this in the bill, on page 19—actually, beginning on page 18—with this language, ‘‘Any feasibility studies’’—because most of their concern revolves around the cost of the storage—‘‘Any feasibility studies completed for storage projects as a result of this act shall include identification of project benefits and 

beneficiaries and a cost-allocation plan consistent with the beneficiaries pay provisions of the Record Of Decision.’’

There is beneficiaries-pay language in this bill. Obviously, we 

can’t determine what it is. Calfed would have to do that at a later 

time. But that is the full intent, and I would hope that the record—

and I know the record will reflect that. 

With respect to the Napa River issue, Mr. Wright, let me ask you 

this question. Mr. Graff claims that the Napa proposal will result 

in about one million acre-feet of water exported from the delta. It’s 

important to note, at the outset, that the Napa meetings produced 

only a proposal, as I understand it, for coordinated system operation, and the appropriate agencies are making decisions on delta 

pumping levels through a separate process. 

Besides the caveat that no final decisions have been made yet, 

didn’t the State Department of Water Resources estimate that—

just that week, that only about 250,000 acre-feet of water would be 

exported from the delta? And didn’t the State give this estimate at 

an Assembly Parks and Wildlife Committee hearing? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That’s correct, Senator. And in addition to that, of 

course, as you, yourself, said, it’s one part of a comprehensive package and will not move forward until the whole package does. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. So I’m glad we settled that one. 

Now, you know, one of the things that I think we are all thinking 

about is the amount, Madam Chairman. There is actually a lot of 

money in the base, before we even start on the amount. So the 

$880 million really is not reflective of net new Federal dollars. And 

I think one key might be, how do we tailor the language so that 

it only includes the Federal share? And what should that be? Do 

you have any comment on that, Mr. Wright? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, let me say again, in response to Interior’s 

comments, it is true, as you, yourself, stated it, that the vast majority of things that we do at the program is to coordinate agency 

programs that are already authorized. It is a coordination effort. 

There are a handful of things that Assistant Secretary Raley mentioned that lack authorization, but most of what we need to do is 

authorized. 

Having said that, though, you’ve heard from just about all the 

witnesses here on the importance of balance and the importance of 

a comprehensive program. So if you were to limit the bill just to 

those very small handful of things that aren’t authorized, then 

you’re not going to reassure folks here that you’re authorizing a 

balanced, comprehensive plan. 

Somehow you’re going to have to strike a balance between having 

the bill be comprehensive enough to send that message, but not 

56

imply, from a financial perspective, that you’re authorizing a massive new program, because you’re not. You’re authorizing the coordination——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yeah, well, let me stop you here. We can’t 

appropriate any money—and we’ve been doing it, and they’re not 

going to do it anymore—without an authorization. That’s why the 

authorization connected to a dollar amount becomes so important. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, if you could tell me—because we 

worked the $880 million. You know, this didn’t come out of the sky. 

It really came actually, from your suggestions. Can you make any 

suggestions today based on the fact that the State, through bond 

funds, actually has a lot of the funding that it would require to be 

used, if it’s possible to reduce that amount and still carry out, in 

the balanced way, the program we contemplate? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We will—as Bennett said earlier—we will work 

with him over the next several weeks. I don’t want to get out in 

front of either the Federal or State side on a budgetary question. 

But it’s obviously a legitimate question, and we need to work with 

both of them to give you that answer. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If it’s possible for you to stay and do it now—

you know, the session’s going on, and I think we need to get a bill, 

and I think we need to have closure on that amount so that it is 

lean and mean, with respect to—and we all know the Federal deficit situation—but that there is a commitment to follow through on 

it. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I would be happy to talk to Interior and the new 

administration about doing that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Raley said that he’d be available effective next week. If you could possibly make yourself available——

Mr. WRIGHT. I can be available whenever you need me to. That 

would not be a problem. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, that would be terrific. 

Mr. Gastelum, you’re very smart, you run a huge water district. 

Focus for a minute on the beneficiary-pays principle. And you mentioned it in your comments. Can you elaborate more on how you 

think this principle could work for Calfed? 

Mr. GASTELUM. As you correctly pointed out, this is embedded in 

Calfed today. There is no formula that has been established in 

Calfed or elsewhere on beneficiaries pay. So what we have, I believe, in California, is a commitment that we’re going to figure that 

out. We believe that it relates to cost share, or something that you 

would relate to on the Federal level in a very real way and something you do all the time, you expect cost-sharing on a local level. 

So we are expecting, in southern California, that in any particular project there will be some share of Federal dollars in the 

Calfed program, some share of State dollars—and that may be general fund, it could be bond funds—and some share of local, and 

that the locals, as beneficiaries, will be expected, however, they finance it locally, to contribute a portion. 

What the formula is on how you do that will end up being a part 

of the process. I’d like to say that we had a formula. We’ll probably 

be making some law, if you—or setting some precedents in CaliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
57

fornia that will be useful for others who are confronting this, but 

we are clearly committed to do that in California. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So let me—and let’s take one of the storage 

projects for example—let’s just take the Shasta Raise. And, Mr. 

Wright and others, you might want to chime in. I would assume 

that if that proves to be cost-effective and feasible, and meets environmental NEPA concerns, that there will then be an allocation of 

cost also that will go down through the system for all those that 

draw water out of that Shasta Dam. Is that a fair assumption to 

make? 

Mr. GASTELUM. I think that’s right. And in southern California’s 

case, as an example, if there was an increment of water available 

that could be allocated to southern California, and southern California was unwilling to pay for that water, additional water supply, 

as beneficiaries, we would not expect to receive that water. But if 

we were asking to receive it, I would expect we’d pay for our allocated share. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Anybody else want to comment on that? 

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. Well, the example that you used is raising 

Sites. In fact, the—I’m sorry, raising Shasta—in fact, reclamation 

law would require an analysis of the costs and beneficiaries, and 

then allocate the costs of that particular project. We anticipate 

that, for other storage facilities, including the Sites or storage 

on——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Upper San Joaquin? 

Mr. BIRMINGHAM [continuing]. On Upper San Joaquin, there 

would be a similar analysis. 

Mr. GRAFF. Senator, let me—I would have said nothing, because 

I think you questions about beneficiary-pays are very helpful to finally pinning down some of the specifics on this that have been 

missing for so long. But when Mr. Birmingham brings up reclamation law, one of the big problems to date, the reason we are in 

these enormous difficulties, is that as a result of past reclamation 

law, both legal compliance and not, we have had users who have 

paid minimally on Federal and—paid back minimally on Federal 

investment, and we’re not in an era where we can continue that. 

If we use the old reclamation-law formulas to build massively expensive projects, basically that’s the taxpayers paying, not the 

users paying. 

Mr. BIRMINGHAM. And I could respond to that by observing that 

under a public law enacted in 1986, all of the capital costs of the 

Central Valley Project must be, and will be, repaid by 2030. And 

under reclamation law, capital costs of the project must be repaid 

within 40 years. 

I wouldn’t disagree with Mr. Graff’s comment that we haven’t 

paid as much as we should have paid at this point, but all of those 

costs will be repaid by the date prescribed by Congress. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I think that’s very helpful. 

Mr. GRAFF. But without interest. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I think that clarifies that. 

I want to just say one thing about Mrs. McPeak. She booked two 

red-eye flights to get here—one to get here tonight and one to go 

home tomorrow. And as one who does the cross-continental, there 

is nothing worse, except if you live in Alaska, maybe. 

58

[Laughter.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you for being here. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’d just like you to know we very much appreciate it. 

Mr. Guy, let me ask this question. You mentioned briefly in your 

testimony how Sites Reservoir will have benefits greater than traditional storage projects. Could you elaborate on this point? 

Mr. GUY. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

Sites Reservoir, in my view, is really water storage for the 21st 

century, because it does provide the multiple benefits that I think 

you’re suggesting. First, it’s off-stream storage. It’s in the coast 

range, on the west side of the valley, in about as good a place as 

you could find for off-stream storage. It will be fiscally sound, to 

the extent that it will utilize the existing conveyance facilities that 

are already in place. And it really provides the benefits that I think 

you’re asking about, because you integrate it with other supplies 

within the region. 

What that allows you to do is, it allows you to have additional 

water, or water in the river, during—in the Sacramento river, 

which, of course, is the primary river in the Bay-Delta system, during times of the year when that water will benefit salmon, 

steelhead. It can provide water-quality benefits in the delta. It can 

provide water for the environmental water account by being upstream of the delta and by essentially making that water available 

during critical times. You can essentially control the water to the 

point where you can provide these multiple benefits. And it’s not 

a traditional yield. It provides you tremendous flexibility, by being 

upstream of the delta, to meet all of the various demands that are 

called for in the Calfed Program. 

Finally, it really provides the opportunity for urban/rural partnerships. And, I think, building on Secretary Raley’s comments, it 

really allows the rural/urban folks to work together in a partnership manner, I think, as we move forward long term. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I’d just like to thank everybody. It’s a 

long haul. I think we have a fine Chairman. Hopefully, we’ll be 

able to move this bill. 

What I’d like to do, if you would agree to it, Senator, is sit down 

with you and Mr. Raley and Mr. Wright after they finish their joint 

deliberations on the funding part of it, and see exactly where we 

are, and then hopefully be able to move the bill. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we would look forward to working 

with you, Senator Feinstein, on this. The staff of this subcommittee 

will be happy to sit down and, as you say, once there’s been an opportunity for you, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Raley to work through some 

of those issues. We will be working forward.Senator FEINSTEIN. 

Great, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank everybody. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate all that you all have put into 

this very complex and very necessary effort. So we appreciate your 

time and attention and your travel. So thank you. We’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF BENNETT RALEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Section 3(b) of S. 1097 approves the 2000 Record of Decision (‘‘ROD’’) 

as a ‘‘framework’’ for addressing certain CALFED Bay-Delta Program components. 

a. Does this approval, as a framework, rise to the level of codification of the ROD? 

Answer. Section 3(b) of S. 1097 states in part that:

The Record of Decision is approved as a framework for addressing Calfed 

Bay-Delta Program components consisting of ...[list of activities omitted]. 

The Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies are authorized to carry 

out (undertake, fund, or participate in) the activities in the Record of Decision, subject to the provisions of this Act and the constraints of the Record 

of Decision, so that the Program activities consisting of . . . [list of activities omitted] . . . will progress in a balanced manner.

The bill does not codify any of the specific activities in the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program Record of Decision (ROD). All activities included in the ROD need further 

study and environmental review before decisions on those activities can be made. 

The bill authorizes the Federal agencies to undertake studies, analysis and reviews 

necessary to make final project decisions. 

b. To what extent do you feel this ‘‘approval’’ authorizes federal implementation 

of the ROD? 

Answer. The language in Section 3(b) of S. 1097 (noted in the response to question 

1a.), authorizes the Federal agencies to carry out activities in the CALFED BayDelta Program Record of Decision. However, this authority is subject to the provisions of the proposed bill. 

Section 3(c)(l) of S. 1097 states that:

The Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies are authorized to 

carry out the activities described in this subsection in furtherance of Stage 

1 of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision, 

subject to the cost-share and other provisions of this Act, if the activity has 

been subject to environmental review and approval as required under applicable Federal and State law, and has been approved and certified by the 

[CBDA] to be consistent with the Record of Decision.

Section 3(c)(1) read in combination with Sections 3(c)(2) and (3) of the proposed 

bill limits that authority to the specifically enumerated activities. 

c. Do you believe approving the ROD as a ‘‘framework’’ affords you the necessary 

authority to carry out the activities in S. 1097? Activities in the ROD? 

Answer. Approving the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD) as 

a ‘‘framework’’ generally affords the implementing agencies the necessary authority 

to carry out the activities in S. 1097, which provides for implementing Stage 1 of 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. However, we recommend that additional language 

should be added to the proposed legislation to clarify the following: 

1. Environmental Water Account (EWA). While the bill provides authority 

and participation for EWA program activities for the period years 4-7, we believe that the bill should authorize implementation of a long-term EWA in a 

fashion that supports the vision and flexibility envisioned in the ROD. The establishment and successful operation of a long-term EWA will be one of the 

most significant accomplishments of the CALFED agencies in reducing the conflicts between fisheries and water project operations. 

60

2. Conveyance Program Elements. While the bill provides for expending funds 

and evaluating certain conveyance activities, it should also provide for conducting feasibility investigations on (a) increasing pumping to 10,300 cfs at H. 

O. Banks Pumping Plant, (b) designing and constructing a fish screen and intake at Clifton Court, and (c) evaluating the San Luis Reservoir Low Point 

Project. 

Approving the ROD as a ‘‘framework’’ does not provide sufficient authority to the 

implementing agencies to undertake all ROD enumerated actions as this encompasses more than is authorized under S. 1097 which covers only Stage 1 implementation—years 1-7 of the 30-year Program. The Administration does not support giving blanket authorization to CALFED program components, as this bill proposes. Individual project components must go through their own NEPA analysis, and have 

separate authorizations. However, the Administration is willing to continue to work 

with Congress on the challenges inherent in moving forward expeditiously on important projects, while still ensuring oversight on the behalf of taxpayers and the environment. 

d. Does this provision connote that such activities are to be carried out consistent 

with the ROD, as is mentioned elsewhere in S. 1097? How much latitude does it 

give the Secretary of the Interior in implementing aspects of the 30-year plan outlined in the ROD? 

Answer. Yes, a general interpretation of Section 3(b) in combination with other 

sections of the bill, implies that implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

Record of Decision (ROD) should progress in a balanced manner, consistent with the 

ROD. The ROD, as a framework, enumerates various activities that can be implemented to achieve the Program objectives. Varying combinations of activities could 

conceivably be employed to achieve those objectives. Consequently, the Secretary of 

the Interior would have discretion in implementing those actions that would achieve 

the objectives rather than being specifically held to implementing all enumerated 

activities. However, the bill would not re-authorize CALFED for the full 30 years. 

e. How does this section § 3(b) compare with the more explicit authority in § 3(c)(1) 

for federal agencies to carry out actions in this subsection in furtherance of Stage 

1 of the ROD? Does the former, in your view, confer more general authority than 

the activities in § 3(c)? 

Answer. As alluded to in the question, Section 3(b) provides for generally implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in a balanced manner, consistent with the 

Record of Decision (ROD). Section 3(c)(1) enumerates specific activities to be carried 

out by the Federal agencies during Stage 1 of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Section 3(c) appears to limit the broader grant of authority in Section 3(b) since Section 

3(b) is subject to the provisions of the proposed bill, including Section 3(c). Section 

3(c) also limits activities that should be pursued, but the activities listed are broad 

and correspond to most all of the actions listed in the ROD. 

Question 2. S. 1097 authorizes appropriations for a host of CALFED program components, some of which federal agencies already have authority to perform. 

a. How much money is currently being spent on activities that could be identified 

as consistent with program components identified in S. 1097 (e.g., activities in 

§ 3(c)(3), such as water storage, conveyance, water use efficiency, and ecosystem restoration)? In other words, to what degree is the new appropriation level authorized 

by S. 1097 above and beyond federal funds currently being spent on these types of 

activities? 

Answer. A collective investment of approximately $1.925 billion has been made in 

Years 1 through 3 from numerous Federal, state and local funding sources, which 

has contributed to project accomplishments in the program areas of water supply 

reliability, drinking water quality, levees, ecosystem restoration, watershed, science 

and oversight and coordination. Of the $1.925 billion, $1.204 billion was state funding, $491 million was local funding and $230 million was Federal funding. The Federal investment for all directly related programs and projects that contribute to 

achieving the CALFED Record of Decision objectives within the geographic solution 

area, Category A Programs, is a total of $230 million. 

Although CALFED-related activities have been funded under existing authorities, 

these should not be considered a baseline for CALFED funding. Any CALFED funding in the context of a re-authorized program must be considered in the larger context of what is necessary to achieve program goals. 

b. What would the benefit be in terms of federal appropriations of having the authorization provided under S. 1097 versus continued funding under existing authorizations? 

Answer. Over the past two fiscal years, funding for CALFED activities has been 

appropriated through Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources account, rather 

than through Reclamation’s Bay-Delta account. This has occurred because Congress 

61

has refused to fund the Bay-Delta account without CALFED Program reauthorization. The impact of this to Reclamation is that increased funding in specific Central 

Valley Project line items in the Water and Related Resources account for in-lieu 

Bay-Delta activities potentially decreases the amount of funding available overall in 

Water and Related Resources to Reclamation core mission activities. 

If the CALFED Program is reauthorized under S. 1097, funding could be provided 

directly to Reclamation’s Bay-Delta account, reducing funding impacts to Reclamation core mission activities. There is also a benefit to Reclamation and to the 

CALFED Program if other Federal CALFED agencies receive authority and funding 

for CALFED activities directly through their own appropriation process. Program 

authorization and direct funding will ensure the full spectrum of CALFED Program 

elements can be funded and implemented in a balanced manner. Without authorization of S. 1097, only those program activities for which agencies currently have authority can be implemented or funded, potentially upsetting the balance of progress 

across the entire Program. 

c. What would be the consequences for federal appropriations of not enacting this 

legislation? 

Answer. Not enacting legislation and subsequent appropriations places the implementing Federal agencies in the potential position of redirecting funds away from 

core missions in order to meet authorized CALFED Bay-Delta activities. This could 

have adverse effects on programs that benefit California and other states. 

Also, Congress has indicated in House Report 108-357, Making Appropriation for 

Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and 

for other Purposes, that it will be difficult for Congress to continue its support of 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and enact fiscal year 2005 appropriations absent 

authorizing Program legislation. 

Question 3. With regard to the relationship between federal and state activities 

and the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program—

a. What is the function of the California Bay-Delta Authority, and how is it expected to interact with federal agencies and their activities under S. 1097? Specify 

this relationship especially with respect to the Department of the Interior. 

Answer. The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) was established by State legislation enacted in 2002 to provide a permanent State governance structure for the 

collaborative State-Federal effort that began in 1994. Pursuant to that legislation 

which became effective January 1, 2003, the CBDA formally assumed responsibility 

for overseeing State implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The legislation calls for the CBDA to sunset on January 1, 2006, unless Federal legislation 

has been enacted authorizing the participation of appropriate Federal agencies in 

the CBDA. 

The state legislation specifically charges the CBDA with ensuring balanced implementation of the Program, providing accountability to the Legislative, Congress and 

the public, and ensuring the use of sound science across all Program areas. The 

CBDA is a coordinating body and has no legal authority over Federal agencies. 

Final decisions on actions continue to reside with the implementing/funding agency. 

Six Federal agencies are named as members of the CBDA including three from 

the Department of the Interior: the Secretary of the Interior, the Operations Manager of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California/Nevada Operations Office, and 

the Regional Director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region. Also 

named are the Regional Administrator of Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the District Engineer of the Sacramento District of the Army Corps 

of Engineers and the Regional Administrator of the Southwest Region of the U. S. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Federal participation in the CBDA is intended to promote coordination and interaction with state agency counterparts thereby assisting both the state and Federal 

agencies to more effectively meet their common goals and obligations. The existing 

coordination efforts would not markedly change with the enactment of the bill other 

than the Federal members of CBDA would become voting members. But, while coordination efforts would not change significantly, a number of complex institutional 

and legal issues would need to be addressed. For example, we question whether it 

would be appropriate for Federal members to cast votes on financial matters before 

the CBDA which are entirely within the purview of the State, such as the transfer 

of funds from one state agency to another. Another example is the issue of whether 

the State’s conflict of interest codes would apply to Federal members of the CBDA; 

and how we would resolve this question if the California Fair Political Practices 

Commission insisted that the state laws are applicable and our Federal legal advisors disagree. 

62

b. What unique role does (or could) the Bay-Delta Authority have that makes it 

advantageous over having the federal agencies working directly with the state agencies? 

Answer. It appears that the Authority is intended by the State of California to 

serve as its primary point of contact with the federal government regarding all 

issues relating to CalFed. In addition, the Authority also serves as a forum for education of and collaborative discussions between the public, stakeholders, and state 

and federal agencies. 

c. How do the federal CALFED agencies currently interact with the California 

Bay-Delta Authority? 

Answer. Federal CalFed agencies attend Authority meetings, but do not participate as voting members. Coordination also takes place pursuant to the commitments 

made by the coordinating agencies in the Amended and Restated CALFED BayDelta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding (Implementation 

MOU). The Implementation MOU sets out the roles and responsibilities of the 

CALFED Agencies in the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and 

covers such items as program integration and balance, financing, public and tribal 

involvement, science-based adaptive management approach, environmental justice, 

local implementation, etc. The participating agencies meet twice a month, in addition to the CBDA meetings, to coordinate CALFED related programs and activities. 

d. In your view, do federal agencies need authorization to become full partners 

in CALFED implementation or in implementation of activities in the ROD? 

Answer. We believe that we can constructively continue our coordination efforts 

under the umbrella of the Amended and Restated CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding and through participation in the California Bay-Delta Authority meetings as non-voting members. 

e. Are federal agencies participating in Bay-Delta Authority work groups? If so, 

how? If not, why not? 

Answer. While the California Bay-Delta Authority does not have ‘‘work groups,’’ 

the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee (BDPAC) does have a number 

of stakeholder chaired subcommittees that focus on specific program elements and 

advance recommendations through the BDPAC for consideration by the implementing state and Federal agencies. Representatives of the Federal agencies regularly attend the sub-committee meetings to stay attuned to the stakeholders concerns. In addition, the Federal agencies coordinate through state and Federal agency meetings twice a month under the umbrella of the Amended and Restated 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding. 

f. What are the advantages or disadvantages of having the Bay-Delta Authority? 

Answer. As noted previously, the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) provides 

a unique forum for discussion and coordination of the implementation of the various 

components of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. This forum is complemented by the 

state and Federal agencies coordination efforts under the Amended and Restated 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding. 

The disadvantage of the structure of the CBDA stem from a host of unresolved 

issues relating to the proposed direct federal participation in decision making by a 

State agency. 

g. What authority does the Bay-Delta Authority have over federal activities? How 

are those actions coordinated? Are any actions by the Bay-Delta Authority binding 

for federal agencies? 

Answer. The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) is a coordinating body and 

has no legal or binding authority over Federal agencies. Section 79403.5.(c) of the 

California State Water Code states in part that:

Nothing in this division shall be construed to restrict or override constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or adjudicatory authority or public trust responsibilities of any federally recognized Indian tribe, or any local, state, or 

federal agency, or to restrict or override authority or responsibility of state, 

federal, or local water project operations under applicable law and contracts.

The CBDA assists in prioritizing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program activities and 

funding to ensure balanced implementation; however, final decisions continue to reside with the implementing/funding agency whether state or Federal. Section 

29423.(1) of the California State Water Code states: ‘‘Nothing in this division limits 

or interferes with the final decisionmaking authority of the implementing agencies.’’

h. If disagreements occur among stakeholders of the Bay-Delta Authority, what 

mechanisms are in place for resolution? 

Answer. California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) members may attempt to reach 

agreement during the course of discussions and deliberations at CBDA meetings. InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
63

terested stakeholders may resolve issues through the California Bay-Delta Public 

Advisory Committee process, including advancing their issues through the various 

subcommittees to the main body. Finally, CALFED participating agencies may raise 

and resolve issues through their twice monthly meetings held under the auspices 

of the Amended and Restated CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding. To date, the CBDA has not adopted a formalized dispute 

resolution process. 

i. Do you have recommendations for the Committee on legislative language to address this governance issue? 

Answer. Because of the issues associated with being a voting member, we recommend that the legislation authorize the Federal agencies to continue to work with 

the CBDA in order to enhance the coordination of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

As previously noted, at the present time, we do not feel it is appropriate for the Federal members to participate as voting members of the CBDA. 

Question 4. Section 3(d)(3)(A)(I) authorizes appropriations for planning activities 

and feasibility studies for enlarging Shasta Dam and Los Vaqueros Reservoir ‘‘to be 

pursued with project specific study.’’ Section 3(d)(3)(A)(ii) authorizes appropriations 

for planning and feasibility studies for Sites Reservoir and Upper San Joaquin River 

storage ‘‘requiring further consideration.’’

a. How would this language § 3(d)(3)(A)(I) and § 3(d)(3)(A)(ii) change the way the 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) currently conducts its planning and feasibility investigations? 

Sections 3(d)(3)(A)(i) and 3(d)(3)(A)(ii) of S. 1097 state:

(3) Program activities—(A) WATER STORAGE—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this Act, 

no more than $102,000,000 may be expended for the following—(i) planning 

activities and feasbility studies for the following projects to be pursued with 

project-specific study—(1) enlargement of Shasta Dam in Shasta County 

(not to exceed 12,000,000); and (II) enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir 

in Contra Costa County (not to exceed $17,000,000); (ii) planning and feasibility studies for the following projects requiring further consideration—(1) 

Sites Reservoir in Colusa County (not to exceed $6,000,000); and (II) Upper 

San Joaquin River storage in Fresno and Madera Counties (not to exceed 

$11,000,000): (iii) developing and implementing groundwater management 

and groundwater storage project (not to exceed $50,000,000); and (iv) comprehensive water management planning (not to exceed $6,000,000).

Answer. Sections 3(c)(3)(A)(i) and 3(c)(3)(A)(ii) would not change the way the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation currently conducts planning investigations. All of the storage 

investigations will be conducted consistent with existing policies and Federal law. 

b. What practical effect would the different language in clauses (i) and (ii) have 

on these studies? 

Answer. There would be no effect on the way the studies outlined in Sections 

3(c)(3)(A)(i) and 3(c)(3)(A)(ii) are currently being conducted. The studies in clause (i) 

focus on modifications to existing facilities, while the studies in clause (ii) will include an evaluation of alternative project locations. This distinction is consistent 

with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision. 

c. Would a CALFED project led by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) be required 

to meet all of the requirements guiding federal water resources development 

projects, such as the Principles and Guidelines? 

Answer. Yes. The feasibility studies will meet all the requirements for feasibility 

investigations including Principles and Guidelines, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Law, and necessary environmental documentation. 

Question 5. Section 3(c)(3)(B)(I) authorizes $45 million for several specific South 

Delta improvements. 

a. Does this $45 million represent only the federal share of such improvements? 

Sections 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(I)(aa) through (dd) of S. 1097 state:

‘‘(B) CONVEYANCE—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

years 2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than $77,000,000 may be expended for the following—

(i) South Delta Actions (not to exceed $45,000,000)—

(I) South Delta Improvements Program to—

(aa) increase the State Water Project export limit to 8,500 cfs; 

(bb) install permanent, operable barriers in the south Delta; 

(cc) design and construct fish screens and intake facilities at Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy Pumping Plant facilities; and 

(dd) increase the State Water Project export to the maximum capability of 10,300 cfs;’’

64

Answer. Yes. A current proposal known as the South Delta Improvements Program includes increasing the State Water Project export limit to an average of 8,500 

cfs, and installation of permanent operable barriers in the south Delta. The current 

schedule is to have this project approved and constructed by 2007. Cost estimates 

provided by the California Department of Water Resources for this proposal are 

$120 million. The $45 million would represent the estimated Federal share for this 

project. 

b. What specific South Delta improvements will the federal government be involved in and how (e.g., construction, technical assistance, etc.)? 

Answer. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) will be involved in the 

construction of several permanent operational barriers to protect fish and water levels in the south Delta as part of the South Delta Improvements Program. This participation is authorized and directed under the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act, Title XXXIV of P.L. 102-575. Reclamation will provide technical assistance to 

the California Department of Water Resources for the design and operation of all 

proposed barriers. Reclamation will also enter into an agreement with the State 

that will define the operation of the Banks Pumping Plant at 8,500 cfs pumping capacity to meet the state and Federal Water Project’s Coordinated Operating Agreement. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency may be involved in the clean water permitting actions required for construction of these facilities. 

c. Where the federal government is concerned, what additional NEPA analysis 

would be required to carry out these activities? 

Answer. NEPA compliance is required for all listed activities. The U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation, in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, 

is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact 

Report for the South Delta Improvements Program to document the decision-making 

process and environmental impacts for the following: 

(1) Increasing the State Water Project export limit to 8,500 cfs to support a U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers diversion permit and conveyance of Federal water supplies; 

(2) Installing permanent, operable barriers in the south Delta; 

(3) Installing and operating temporary barriers in the south Delta until the fully 

operable barriers are constructed; and (4) Actions to protect navigation and local diversions not adequately protected by the temporary barriers. 

d. In your view, can these South Delta improvements be accomplished without 

‘‘avoiding adverse fishery impacts and in-Delta water supply reliability’’—language 

noted in the ROD (p. 49)? 

Answer. Yes. The operation of the permanent barriers and increasing the permitted pumping capacity to 8,500 cfs can be accomplished while avoiding the adverse impacts noted. Mitigation measures are being formulated to address the potential adverse fishery impacts associated with the implementation of the South 

Delta Improvements Project. However, assuring that there would be no additional 

fishery and water supply reliability impacts may reduce the Delta export water supply benefits resulting from the South Delta Improvement Program. 

e. Do you believe statutory protection for these objectives is necessary as is provided under §§ 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(I)(aa) and (dd) of H.R. 2641? 

Sections 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(I)(aa) through (dd) of H.R. 2641 state:

‘‘(B) CONVEYANCE—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

years 2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than $77,000,000 may be expended for the following—

(i) South Delta Actions (not to exceed $45,000,000)—

(I) South Delta Improvements Program to—

(aa) increase the State Water Project export limit to 8,500 cfs; 

such increased pumping is conditional upon avoiding adverse impacts to fishery protection and in-Delta water supply reliability; 

(bb) install permanent, operable barriers in the south Delta; 

(cc) design and construct fish screens and intake facilities at Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy Pumping Plant facilities; and 

(dd) increase the State Water Project export to the maximum capability of 10,300 cfs; such increased pumping is conditional upon 

avoiding adverse impacts to fishery protection and in-Delta water 

supply reliability;’’

Answer. Statutory protection is not needed for fish species that are listed as either state or Federal threatened or endangered species. The language in the referenced section of H.R. 2641 is ambiguous in that it continues the use of a broad 

and undefined phrase ‘‘fishery protection,’’ rather than protection for specific defined 

65

species. In addition, ‘‘in-Delta water supply reliability’’ is also subject to interpretation. 

f. What actions are anticipated in the South Delta to minimize impacts on drinking water quality? Who will agricultural drainage and saltwater intrusion be d.) In 

your view, can these South Delta improvements be accomplished without ‘‘avoiding 

adverse fishery impacts and in-Delta water supply reliability’’—language noted in 

the ROD (p. 49)? Note: This is the question, verbatim, as posed by the Senate.) 

Answer. Note: Please clarify the question, if you feel our response does not answer 

the question posed. A basic purpose of the South Delta Improvements Program is 

to ensure water of adequate quantity and quality for agricultural diverters within 

the south Delta, and to benefit fisheries by reducing straying of salmon into the 

south Delta. The South Delta Improvements Program will have beneficial water 

quality and fishery effects, and will result in less than significant adverse impacts 

through implementation of needed mitigation measures. The type of action anticipated to minimize impacts on drinking water quality involves alternative operation 

of various tidal gates associated with the operation of the State of California Clifton 

Court Forebay. 

Question 6. Section 3(c)(3)(C)(i) of S. 1097 authorizes appropriations for water conservation projects that provide water supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits to the Bay-Delta system.a. In the view of the Department of the Interior (DOI), does § 3(c)(3)(C)(i) of S. 1097 provide blanket authority for DOI and 

others to undertake water recycling and desalination projects in California (subject 

to the constraints of the subsection)? 

Answer. No. While Section 3(c)(3(c)(i)-(v) provides authorization for appropriations 

to be expended on water recycling and desalination projects, it does not provide authority for the Secretary to undertake feasibility studies or construction of projects 

for those purposes. However, the Secretary already has feasibility study authority 

for water reclamation and reuse projects under P.L. 102-575, Title XVI. 

b. How would this provision affect implementation and funding of previously authorized Title 16 projects? 

Answer. Previously authorized projects under P.L. 102-575, Title XVI, as amended, are probably not directly impacted. However, Section 3(c)(3)(C)(iii)(IV) states 

that the Federal cost share of any water recycling project under this proposed legislation shall not exceed 25 percent or $50 million per project, an increase over the 

current $20 million per cap. This change would therefore affect new projects, but 

not already-authorized projects. 

Feasibility study authority already exists under P.L. 102-575, Section 1604, for 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to conduct water recycling and reuse feasibility 

studies. 

Question 7. S. 1097 refers to the ‘‘beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of Decision.’’ The ROD states that ‘‘cost allocation plans will be based on the principles 

of beneficiary pays.’’ This principle state that costs, to the extent possible, shall be 

paid by the beneficiaries of the program actions. 

a. S. 1097 authorizes specific appropriation amounts for various categories of activities. Within each of the categories, how will spending on individual projects be 

prioritized? For example, what method would be used to select ecosystem projects 

to receive funds, and how would available funds be distributed across selected 

projects? 

Answer. The implementing Federal agency will determine which specific projects 

have priority within a program on a project-by-project basis. Federal agencies working with the Administration will submit annual budget requests for Congress’ review and appropriation. Annual requests for project funding and priority will be 

based on Federal parameters and budgetary guidance for that fiscal year. 

The language of the proposed bill does not limit the Federal share of any project 

or any agency participation to 33.3%, but rather it limits total Federal participation 

in the Program to 33.3%. 

Certain CALFED Bay-Delta program elements, including the Ecosystem Restoration Program, are predominantly implemented through grant programs. These grant 

programs have and will continue to target priorities established by the implementing agencies, and the CALFED Science Program along with stakeholder input. 

To the extent feasible, grant awards will be based upon competitive procedures. 

b. In S. 1097, the federal portion of the cost of implementing the CALFED Program is limited to 33.3%; the bill, however, does not appear to guide federal cost 

sharing on individual activities. Under S. 1097, how would the federal portion of 

costs be determined for each of the studies and projects undertaken as part of 

CALFED? For example, what would be the federal cost-share responsibility for 

Shasta dam and for the Delta levees? 

66

Answer. For several agencies the Federal portion of cost will be based on a specific project-by-project basis while other Federal agencies will base the cost sharing 

at the program level. Individual agencies will determine how to portion the costs 

for each of the studies, projects, and/or programs undertaken as part of the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

The Federal costs for water resource studies and projects are based on cost sharing requirements and allocation methodologies outlined in Federal laws, policies and 

Executive level guidance, i.e., Principles and Guidelines. 

The four feasibility level studies, including Shasta Dam Enlargement, within the 

Storage Program Element are being pursued with state cost sharing on a programmatic level. This arrangement allows either party to accomplish work with or 

without specific funding from either party, but provides for the crediting of costs of 

each party in the final reconciliation. 

The project specific cost sharing will be addressed within the feasibility study and 

includes an evaluation of the combined factors of costs and benefits, the financial 

capability of the project beneficiaries and a cost allocation of project purposes. The 

final feasibility report will provide detailed information of the Federal and non-Federal cost sharing arrangement. 

c. Because many federal agencies use federal appropriations on projects that 

under current law are eligible for a higher federal cost-share, would the language 

in S. 1097 restrict federal participation in a project to 33.3%? Would each individual 

federal agency’s participation be limited to 33.3%? 

Answer. Each Federal agency would have to submit a recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administration for approval on how 

to handle that individual agency’s interpretation of legislation and the 33.3% provision versus previous law(s) and policy. Agencies may determine the legislation supersedes previous laws and/or policy while other agencies may determine eligibility 

at higher Federal cost-shares rates. In both cases the agency’s coordination and approval by OMB and the Administration would be required before either option was 

implemented. 

d. Under S. 1097 and the ROD, how will the cost of ecosystem restoration be allocated among the federal, state, and local CALFED sponsors, recognizing the difficulty of identifying direct beneficiaries of ecosystem restoration? 

Answer. Our current view is that if multiple separable features or benefit categories are identified in a project the component for each individual separable feature, i.e., ecosystem restoration, will be determined based on principles and guidelines and the resulting cost-sharing for each separable project feature, i.e., ecosystem restoration, for that implementing agency or local CALFED project sponsor 

will be determined. 

e. Ecosystem restoration and mitigation costs raise the question of legacy environmental harm and who is responsible. Are costs related to activities that will improve 

environmental health to be allocated to the historic water users who benefited from 

the projects that diverted water away and thus caused ecosystem damage, or are 

ecosystem restoration and mitigation costs to be allocated to the beneficiaries of the 

improved environment? 

Answer. Site specific mitigation required and mitigation costs will be attributed 

to new projects for those individual new project’s environmental impacts. Mitigation 

work will be allocated to the Federal and non-Federal partners involved in a project 

based on applicable mitigation laws and policies. Environmental restoration or reestablishment or betterment of the environment health will be cost shared based on 

the applicable agency’s restoration laws and policies and cost shared according to 

those agency’s environmental restoration standards. 

Question 8. Will S. 1097 help implement the recent Colorado River agreement? 

If so, what provisions will aid the agreement’s implementation? 

Answer. Although this legislation will not directly assist with the implementation 

of the Colorado River Agreement, certainly implementation of the CALFED BayDelta Program will provide for increasing water supply flexibility, water quality and 

environmental restoration. In addition, this allows for a robust water transfer market. All of the elements which will aid California in keeping its promise to limit its 

future use of Colorado River water. 

Question 9. In your testimony, you raise a number of concerns with S. 1097, as 

introduced. 

a. You note that S. 1097 references two studies that the Administration has not 

cleared. Which studies are those? 

Answer. The legislation refers to the Southern California Comprehensive Water 

Reclamation and Reuse Study and the Bay Area Regional Recycling Program, both 

of which are authorized under Title XVI of P.L. 102-575. 

67

b. You note that S. 1097 presumes authorization of storage projects that may not 

be authorized after additional studies are completed. You further state that ‘‘CalFed 

should identify alternate paths for achieving the outcomes of the storage component 

of the program.’’

Do you have any suggestions as to how the storage component of the program can 

best be achieved? 

Answer. The Water Supply Reliability Program Element of CALFED has several 

component actions that in varying combinations could be pursued to achieve increased water supplies. Should surface storage projects not be deemed feasible, complimentary water conservation and groundwater storage projects could be investigated and pursued. Implementation of CALFED Bay-Delta Program activities will 

be advised by the best available science and adaptively pursued so as to achieve the 

objectives of the Program which does not necessarily imply implementing all 

projects enumerated in the Record of Decision. 

c. You state the Administration’s concern that the bill gives blanket authorization 

to projects that have not undergone the typical Executive review process. 

Which projects outlined in S. 1097 is the Administration concerned with? 

Answer. The language in several sections of the proposed legislation appears to 

give blanket authorization to projects that have not undergone the typical project 

development and Executive review process. For example: 

(1) Section 3(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides for both developing and implementing groundwater storage projects. Groundwater Projects are typically locally driven and Federal participation and funding should be subject to the responsible Federal implementing agencies feasibility investigations and review process. 

(2) Section 3(c)(3)(C)(iii) directs the Secretary to review any seawater desalination 

and regional brine line feasibility studies, regardless of prior U.S. Department of Interior involvement in those studies. Such studies are again locally driven and should 

be adopted by the Administration and/or Congress only after being subjected to the 

same scrutiny that applies to Federally-sponsored studies. 

d. With regard to the cross-cut budget, your testimony notes that the Department 

of Justice has alternate language. When will that language be provided to the Committee? 

Answer. We are consulting with the Department of Justice and will provide the 

Committee with a response in the near future. Follow-Up Questions form Senator 

Gordon Smith 

RESPONSE OF BENNETT RALEY TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR SMITH

Question 1. My Question does not relate directly to Cal-Fed, but rather to a situation in my state. On August 8, 2003, I joined with Senator Wyden and Congressman 

Walden to send a letter to Commissioner Keys, requesting that he reconsider the 

agency’s decision to deny applicant status in an Endangered Species Act consultation to three irrigation districts in southern Oregon. 

I received a response from the Pacific Northwest Regional Director, Bill McDonald, that he had been asked to respond on behalf of the Commissioner, and that he 

would not reconsider this earlier decision not to grant applicant status to these districts, yet provided few justifications as to how his decision had been arrived at. 

I am concerned that his decision, which involves diversions from the Klamath 

Basin, was made at the regional level, even though two regions are involved. I am 

also concerned that this decision may have been made without review by the Solicitor’s office in Washington. 

In sum, the applicants (the Talent, Medford, and Rogue River Valley Irrigation 

Districts) applied to applicant status based on the Joint Consultation Regulations 

that define Applicant as ‘‘any person, as defined in Sec. 3(13) of the Act, who requires formal approval or authorization form a federal agency as a prerequisite to 

conducting the action.’’ 50 CFR 402.02 (1999). 

Was this decision made, reviewed or approved in Washington, D.C.? 

How does the Department justify these districts applicant status, based on the 

fact that operation of facilities owned and/or operated by the districts is an interrelated and/or interdependent activity with Reclamation’s operation of the Rogue 

River Basin Project? 

Will you commit to reviewing this decision? I am willing to provide you with any 

additional documentation or prior correspondence you may require. 

Answer. The Department will respond to Senator Smith directly with regard to 

this question. 

68

RESPONSES OF BENNETT RALEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN

Question 1. I understand that the Administration supports the Calfed Bay-Delta 

Program and the August 28, 2002 Record of Decision. Do you believe that there has 

been an effective partnership between the Federal government and the State of 

California in working on these important water management issues? 

• What do you expect for that partnership in the future? 

Answer. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision contemplates a 30-

year Program to improve the quality and reliability of California’s water supplies 

and revive the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem. The first three years of the Program’s implementation have produced notable progress in improving water supply 

reliability and the ecological health of the Bay-Delta Estuary. This progress has 

been possible due to the cooperative and collaborative efforts of the implementing 

Federal, state and local agencies. This level of interaction is anticipated to continue 

into the future so as to realize the long-term benefits and expectations of the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

• Do you have any recommendations for effective governance structure in 

CALFED legislation, bringing together State and Federal agencies? 

Answer. We believe that we can constructively continue our coordination efforts 

under the umbrella of the Amended and Restated CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding and through participation in the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) meetings as non-voting members. 

Because of the legal and institutional issues associated with being a voting member, we recommend that the legislation authorize the Federal agencies to continue 

to work with the CBDA in order to enhance the coordination of the CALFED BayDelta Program. As previously noted, at the present time, we do not feel it is appropriate for the Federal members to participate as voting members of the CBDA. 

Question 2. In her testimony on Calfed legislation last Congress before this Subcommittee, Secretary Norton stated that ‘‘Congress needs to authorize the Calfed 

Program so we can proceed with balanced progress on all resource fronts.’’ Is that 

still the Administration’s position? 

Answer. Yes. Secretary Norton on many occasions has emphasized the Administration’s commitment to making CALFED work for the long term. The Secretary has 

stated that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a prime example of a forward looking, long-term approach to water management and conflict resolution. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) is committed to working through the CALFED 

process to increase water supplies and their reliability, improve the environment 

and increase the flexibility and accomplishments of the Bay-Delta system and California’s water management infrastructure. Moving the Program from planning to 

implementation is a complex challenge given the fiscal realities at hand. Interior 

will continue to work closely with you to get the CALFED Bay-Delta Program authorized. 

Question 3. In your oral statement at the hearing, you discussed the Southern 

California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. However, you did 

not address the status of the second water recycling study in California—the Bay 

Area Regional Recycling Program—also authorized in Title XVI, P.L. 102-575. This 

feasibility study was completed in December 1999, but like the Southern California 

feasibility study, has not been submitted to Congress. 

• What is the status of the Bay Area Study? 

Answer. The report has been reviewed and processed. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently transmitted the report for transmission to Congress. 

• When will it be submitted to Congress? 

Answer. The report was transmitted to Congress in early December 2003. 

Question 4. How much funding has the Federal government contributed over the 

first three years of Stage 1 of this Program? How much has the State contributed? 

Answer. A collective investment of approximately $1.925 billion has been made in 

Years 1 through 3 from numerous Federal, state and local funding sources which 

has attributed to project accomplishments in the program areas of water supply reliability, drinking water quality, levees, ecosystem restoration, watershed, science and 

oversight and coordination. Of the $1.925 billion, $1,204 million was state funding, 

$491 million was local funding and $230 million was Federal funding. The Federal 

investment for all directly related programs and projects that contribute to achieving the CALFED Record of Decision objectives within the geographic solution area, 

Category A Programs, is a total of $230 million. In addition, the Federal investment 

for all directly related and overlapping programs and projects that contribute to 

achieving the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision objectives within and 

overlapping the geographic solution area is a total of $600 million. 

69

Question 5. How would you describe the level of cooperation and commitment of 

the other Federal agencies to this Program? 

Answer. The level of cooperation and commitment of the participating Federal 

agencies has been steady, however, not uniform. This can be attributable to varying 

funding levels across the agencies, lulls in project implementation schedules and diversity of agency missions. The enactment of legislation and accompanying appropriations would aid in stabilizing the involvement and level of participation by Federal agencies. 

Question 6. What is the status of the work on the following storage projects: 

• Shasta Dam? 

Answer. A Mission Statement Milestone Report has been completed. This report 

describes the plan formulation rationale, the study objectives and mission statement, as well as identifying a number of concept plans for future investigation. A 

thorough review of ecosystem restoration opportunities on the Sacramento River has 

been completed, as well as a preliminary investigation of potential effects of an increased reservoir on the McCloud River. A public outreach program has been initiated to involve stakeholders in the plan formulation process. A Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation that initiates formal public scoping will issued in the spring of 

2004. 

The project schedule is as follows:

Action ROD Current 

Report on Initial Alternatives March 2004

Plan Formulation Report June 2005

Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR March 2007

Final Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR December 2003 September 2007

• Los Vaqueros? 

Answer. A draft Planning Report has been completed that provides a preliminary 

analysis of the physical effects of enlarging the reservoir as well as an array of operational scenarios. Pending an advisory vote by Contra Costa Water District ratepayers in March 2004, work will be initiated on the state and Federal environmental compliance process as well as additional engineering studies. During the period before the March 2004 vote, agency coordination and identification of work activities will be accomplished immediately following the March vote. 

The project schedule is a follows:

Action ROD Current 

Local Advisory Vote March 2004

Plan Formulation Report November 2004

Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR June 2006

Final Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR December 2003 June 2007

• Sites Reservoir? 

Answer. Planning studies are focused on developing a purpose and need description and screening criteria for project alternatives based on the CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program Record of Decision. Work is continuing in areas of hydrology, water quality, and hydraulics modeling to assess potential project benefits and impacts. Reclamation is also reviewing DWR studies relevant to geology, engineering, and conveyance. Initial coordination with DWR on economic analyses for the feasibility 

study has begun. Reclamation has initiated agreements with several tribes to assess 

benefits and impacts to their Indian Trust Assets. Reclamation is also developing 

a work plan to assess potential Federal interest in the proposed North of Delta OffStream Storage plan. 

The project schedule is a follows:

Action ROD Current 

Report on Initial Alternatives June 2004

Plan Formulation Report September 2004

Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR June 2005

Final Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR August 2004 June 2006

• Delta Wetlands? 

Answer. The California Department of Water Resources plans to publicly release 

the In-Delta Storage Draft State Feasibility Report in December 2003. The State 

Feasibility Report addresses the technical and engineering practicality of a re-engiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
70

neered alternative that meets State design requirements. There will be a 30-day 

public review period subsequent to the final release of the State Feasibility Report 

which is anticipated in February 2004. 

Both the CALFED Science Review Board and DWR are working on developing a 

plan for resolving water quality issues associated with water storage on the islands. 

The cost of an In-Delta Storage Project is estimated at $774 million. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s involvement in the planning study is limited to technical assistance since a Federal feasibility study investigation has not been authorized by 

Congress. 

A recommendation by the California Bay-Delta Authority regarding the future of 

the In-Delta Storage Program is scheduled for April 2004. 

• Upper San Joaquin storage projects? 

Answer. An interim planning report was completed in October 2003 describing the 

storage options still being considered. The findings in the interim report show that 

six surface storage projects appear technically feasible and will be considered in 

more detail. A Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation will be issued in January 

2004 to initiate formal public scoping . An alternatives report is planned for August 

2004 that will describe the final set of alternatives to be considered in the study. 

The project schedule is as follows:

Action ROD Current 

Issue NOI/NOP January 2004

Report on Initial Alternatives August 2004

Plan Formulation Report August 2005

Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR December 2006

Final Feasibility Report & EIS/EIR December 2003 December 2007

Question 7. What is the status of work on new groundwater storage? 

Answer. Within the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, the California Department of 

Water Resources is the lead agency working with local interests in evaluating new 

groundwater storage. To date, the conjunctive management program has shown 

great potential to provide short-term water supply benefits. Funding under the 

State’s Proposition 13 has allowed many locally managed and controlled groundwater studies and pilot projects to be developed. Additional work is needed to identify more new groundwater projects and implement the projects currently identified. 

Question 8. What are the significant water quality challenges confronting water 

users in the Bay-Delta. What progress is Calfed making with respect to these challenges? 

Answer. Great strides have been made over the last few years in understanding 

how the Delta works, but much more scientific understanding is needed. Delta 

water quality is at times degraded for a number of reasons and this can impact use 

of the water by agriculture, fish and wildlife and municipal suppliers. Man-made 

and natural pollutants can enter the Delta from many upstream watersheds. Water 

diversions may affect the circulation patterns within the Delta. Point and nonpoint 

discharges within the Delta and upstream create both local and general water quality concerns. Water diversions upstream and in the Delta reduce the overall amount 

of fresh water in the system, which may concentrate degraded constituents and reduce the ability of the Delta to rely on natural flushing to resolve water quality 

problems. Significant tidal influences affect delta water quality in ways we are still 

trying to understand. 

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program agencies primary approach to resolving water 

quality concerns is a competitive grant programs. The grant review process identifies the highest priority projects with the best potential for making near-term improvements and/or developing critical information necessary to resolving water quality problems. To date, the CALFED agencies have invested over $34 million in 21 

water quality projects through the Drinking Water Quality and Ecosystem Restoration Programs. Examples of the projects funded include: 

(1) Developing solution to improve dissolved oxygen conditions in the San Joaquin River near Stockton; 

(2) Evaluate mercury transport and uptake within the Delta watershed; and 

(3) North Bay Aqueduct Alternative Intake Study. 

In addition, CALFED has supported regional efforts using innovative management to provide better water quality ‘‘at the tap,’’ including the Bay Area’s Bay Area 

Water Quality and Supply Reliability Program. 

Water quality has also benefited from other CALFED Bay-Delta program elements. Most notably, the watershed program, which has funded over 50 projects 

71

with over $19 million, has benefits for both the ecosystem and for downstream 

water quality. 

Question 9. What progress is being made in the ecosystem restoration component 

of the program? 

Answer. Since its inception nearly 7 years ago, the Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) has facilitated funding for a variety of projects contributing to ecosystem restoration on within the ERP’s geographic scope. ERP investments contributed to sustaining regulatory commitments for all CALFED Bay-Delta Program elements in Years 1 through 3. As of June 2003, 393 ecosystem projects have been 

funded in the approximate amount of $480 million that address recovering endangered and other at-risk species, rehabilitating ecological processes, maintaining or 

enhancing harvestable species populations, protecting and restoring habitats, preventing establishment of non-native invasive species and reducing their impact, and 

improving or maintaining water and sediment quality. These projects have resulted 

in the thousands of acres of habitat being protected or restored and 75 new or improved fish screens have been installed. Additionally, 23 comprehensive scientific 

studies have been initiated to address areas of uncertainty and develop/enhance ecological data. 

In addition, certain ecosystem restoration activities we are implementing pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) are coordinated through 

the CALFED ERP Single Blueprint—concept for restoration and species recovery 

within the geographic scope of the ERP—and support the goals and objectives of the 

CALFED ERP. Implementation of CVPIA activities have resulted in positive effects 

to the numerous species and habitat types throughout the Central Valley ecosystem. 

The investment and results of those CVPIA program activities coordinated with the 

CALFED ERP are briefly highlighted as follows: 

Habitat Restoration ($124 million investment). 

• Applied up to 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project water each year to improve stream flows for salmon, steelhead, and other fish on the Sacramento, 

American, and Stanislaus Rivers and on Clear Creek. 

• Removed five dams and 15 in-stream diversions in basin, providing improved 

access to over 24 miles of upstream spawning areas and enhanced survival of 

juvenile outmigrants. 

• Acquired over 8,000 acres of riparian habitat. 

• Restored or enhanced over 500 acres along 30 miles of basin streams. 

• Acquired over 108,000 acre-feet of water through purchase or exchange to improve fish habitat and passage, stream flow, and water temperatures. 

• Added approximately 156,000 tons of gravel to streams. 

• Made operational changes to protect fish at the state and Federal pumping 

plants and at the Delta Cross Channel Gates. 

• Implemented the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program. 

• Acquired over 172 acres of riparian habitat. 

• Restored or enhanced over 500 acres along 8.7 miles of basin streams to provide 

cover and shade. 

• Enhanced over 5.4 miles of stream channel as instream habitat for anadromous 

fish. 

• Acquired over 844,000 acre-feet of water for restoration of fish-friendly instream 

flows. 

• Placed nearly 72,000 tons of gravel in San Joaquin River Basin streams to increase spawning habitat availability for native fishes. 

Structural Measures ($264.6 million investment) 

• Screened or otherwise modified 19 diversions with a total capacity of over 6,700 

cubic feet per second to reduce entrainment of juvenile fishes. 

• Installed Shasta Dan temperature control device. 

• Improved Coleman National Fish Hatchery-Raceways and installed a new water 

treatment system to protect hatchery production. 

• Constructed Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery on the mainstem Sacramento River to assist in the management and recovery of winter-run Chinook 

salmon. 

• Modified and improved the Keswick Fish Trap. 

• Screened 6 diversions to protect juvenile fish. 

• Installed a seasonal barrier at the head of Old River. 

• Removed a barrier to fish migration on the Cosumnes River.

Question 10. Please describe the so-called ‘‘Napa Proposition.’’ Is it consistent with 

the Calfed Record of Decision? What is the significance of this effort? 

72

Answer. The Napa Proposition is a process to develop feasible plans to implement 

key actions contained in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD). 

The primary objective of the initial Napa discussions was to develop a proposal for 

the integration of the State Water Project (SWP) and the Federal Central Valley 

Project (CVP) in a manner that is consistent with the CALFED ROD. The proposition was developed during meetings that were a continuation of an ongoing relationship between the project agencies and their contractors to ensure better coordination of the day-to-day operations of both projects. 

The proposition is expected to moderately increase supplies for both projects. By 

better managing risk, it will allow higher allocations earlier in the year, increasing 

certainty for both CVP and SWP contractors. Most importantly, the proposition sets 

the stage for implementation of key CALFED Bay-Delta program elements, including increasing pumping capacity at the SWP Banks Pumping Plant to 8,500 cfs, implementation of the South Delta Improvements Project, continuation of the Environmental Water Account, and making improvements to Delta water quality among 

other things. 

The Napa Proposition was really just the beginning of a process and no final decisions have been made. The proposition is being considered through a more formal 

decision-making process described in the CALFED ROD, including various stakeholders and public review activities. 

Question 11. What is the California Bay-Delta Authority? Please describe the role 

of the Federal agencies in the Authority. 

Answer. The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA), established by California 

legislation enacted in 2002 (California Bay-Delta Authority Act), provides a permanent governance structure for the collaborative State-Federal effort that began in 

1994. The CBDA is charged specifically with ensuring balanced implementation of 

the Program, providing accountability to the Legislature, Congress and the public, 

and ensuring the use of sound science across all Program areas. 

The CBDA is composed of representatives from six State agencies and six Federal 

agencies, five public members from the Program’s five regions, two at-large public 

members, a representative from the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, and four 

ex officio members who are the chairs and vice-chairs of the California Senate and 

Assembly water committees. Currently Federal agencies are engaging with their 

State CALFED partner agencies and have participated as nonvoting members in the 

first two meetings. This engagement takes the form of coordination and discussions 

on Program implementation efforts. 

Question 12. What relationship, if any, does the Calfed Program have with respect 

to compliance with the Colorado River Agreement? 

Answer. Implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program will provide for increasing water supply reliability and flexibility in operations, and water quality 

throughout the Bay-Delta estuary. These anticipated improvements will aid in meeting the future water resource needs of the State as a whole and enable California 

to keep its promise to limit its future use of Colorado River water. 

RESPONSES OF BENNETT RALEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DORGAN

Question 1. Do you believe that it is important to enact Federal authorizing legislation for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program this Congress? Why or why not? 

Answer. Yes, and we have said repeatedly that it is important for this Congress 

to pass CALFED legislation. Not enacting legislation and subsequent appropriations 

places the implementing Federal agencies in the potential position of redirecting 

funds away from core missions in order to meet authorized CALFED Bay-Delta activities. This could have adverse effects on programs that benefit California and 

other states. A lengthy protraction of this effort will also confound the planning efforts underway to satisfy the competing water resource needs of California. 

Also, Congress has indicated in House Report 108-357, Making Appropriation for 

Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and 

for other Purposes, that it will be difficult for Congress to continue its support of 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and enact fiscal year 2005 appropriations absent 

authorizing legislation. 

Question 2. Does the Calfed Bay-Delta Program enjoy broad support among stakeholders in California? 

Answer. Stakeholders and the public have demonstrated a continuing interest and 

commitment to the goals outlined in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD) through participation in the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory 

Committee as well as numerous public meetings focusing on specific program and 

project implementation efforts. This commitment has been tempered by current fisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
73

cal realities and concerns that the broad goals of the ROD continue to be pursued, 

but over a more extended time frame. 

Question 3. What implications, if any, does authorizing the Calfed Program have 

for other western states? 

Answer. Authorization of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the context of implementing the water supply reliability and environmental improvements outlined 

in the Program’s Record of Decision will have broad effects statewide and throughout the West. The Bay-Delta system provides drinking water to 22 million people, 

supports a trillion dollar economy, including a $27 billion agricultural industry, and 

forms of the hub of the largest estuary on the west coast which is home to 750 plant 

and animal species and supports 80 percent of California’s commercial salmon fisheries. Better management of California’s water resources, will provide security for 

all other western states and compliment the achievements made in the Colorado 

River Agreement. In addition, providing stable supplies will enhance economic recovery for the 5th largest economy in the world. It further will provide interstate 

and international benefits by increasing populations of salmon and other anadromous fish on the west coast and by improving habitat for migratory wildfowl on 

the Pacific Flyway. 

Question 4. When will the secretary complete the additional environmental reviews for the December 19, 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision, as ordered by the 

court? Please provide a schedule detailing interim steps and final deadline for completion. 

Answer. The Court ordered deadline for completing the Trinity Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is July 9, 2004. In the next few weeks, the 

U.S. Department of Justice anticipates requesting the Court’s consideration of a 

delay in completing the SEIS. The interim steps required to complete the SEIS are 

(1) issue Administrative Draft SEIS, (2) agency comment period, (3) respond to 

agency comments, (4) issue public draft SEIS, (5) public comment period, (6) complete § 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act, (7) respond to public comments, and (8) complete SEIS. A schedule for these interim activities will be available upon the Court’s consideration of our request. 

Question 5. Would enactment of S. 1097 require any adjustments in the amount 

or scheduling of releases of water from the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project that are provided for in the December 19, 2000 Trinity River Record of 

Decision issued by the Secretary? 

Answer. No. The decision by the Secretary of the Interior on the amount and 

scheduling of releases of water from the Trinity River Division was made pursuant 

to provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The proposed legislation does not address Trinity River Division operations. 

Question 6. Would the Napa Proposal, if adopted, require any adjustments in the 

amount or scheduling of releases of water from the Trinity River Division of the 

Central Valley Project that are provided for in the December 19, 2000 Trinity River 

Record of Decision issued by the Secretary? 

Answer. No. The Napa Proposition is silent on Trinity River Division operations. 

All project operation modeling has assumed implementation of the Trinity River 

Record of Decision. Although operations of the Trinity River Division can affect 

water supplies available in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, there is no reference in the Proposition regarding adjustments in the amount or scheduling of releases that are provided for in the December 19, 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision issued by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Question 7. Does the Administration agree with the views expressed by the California Secretary of Resources in her October 2, 2003 letter to Senators Feinstein and 

Boxer that 

‘‘[N]othing in the Napa Proposal jeopardizes implementation the Trinity River 

Record of Decision;’’ and 

‘‘[T]he instream flow schedule in the Trinity River ROD is the foundation for restoration of the Trinity River and its native fish.’’

Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) agrees that nothing in the 

Napa Proposition jeopardizes the Trinity River Record of Decision (ROD). Interior 

also agrees that the Trinity ROD provides the basis for addressing the restoration 

of the Trinity River and its native fish in a scientific manner using an adaptive 

management strategy. 

Question 8. Do you believe that the Trinity River ROD implementation should 

occur prior to implementation of the Napa Proposal? Why or why not? 

Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior supports moving forward on parallel 

tracks for implementation of these actions. Both Trinity River Division operations 

and integrated Central Valley Project/State Water Project operations (Napa Proposition) will be included in the Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species 

74

Act for the Operational Criteria and Plan for the projects. Neither action can be implemented until that consultation is complete. Implementation of these actions will 

also require completion of separate, required environmental impact analysis. At that 

point, final decisions can be made on implementation of these actions. 

Question 9. Is it the Department’s position that it is upholding its trust responsibility to the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes with respect to Trinity River restoration? 

Please explain. 

Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) is upholding its trust responsibility to the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes by continuing to resolve the present 

Trinity litigation and support the Trinity Flow Record of Decision (ROD) by using 

those flows in all future condition model runs for the Operational Criteria and Plan. 

In addition, Interior is moving forward with the implementation of the non-flow aspects of the ROD. Interior has spent over $100 million on the Trinity River Restoration Program. 

Question 10. Has the Calfed Program to date helped to increase water supply reliability for urban and agricultural water users? Will it do so in the future? 

Answer. Yes. In the first three years of implementation, the Environmental Water 

Account (EWA) has secured regulatory commitments to stabilize the water supplies 

of the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Water Project (CVP) while providing additional protection to sensitive Bay/Delta fish species. Although 2003 was 

a dry year, both SWP and CVP allocations to their users south and west of the 

Delta were at least 75 percent of contractor requests by late summer. The EWA provides the Project and Management Agencies the ability to plan in advance for operations changes taken to protect fish. This proactive approach to resource protection 

not only reduces conflict and uncertainty, it permits more timely responses and 

helps to avoid crisis management. With EWA, time is not lost negotiating the scale, 

duration, or timing of an operations response, or in weighing of possible project impacts (since EWA compensates for them). 

Authorization of a long-term EWA is necessary to maintain and improve water 

supply reliability with the flexibility envisioned in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

Record of Decision. 

Question 11. Please list accomplishments of the Program to date with respect to 

ecosystem restoration. Answer. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision 

included the Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) Plan which detailed six goals 

for the ERP: (1) recover endangered and other at-risk species and native biotic communities; (2) rehabilitate ecological processes; (3) maintain or enhance harvested 

species populations; (4) protect and restore habitats; (5) prevent establishment of 

and reduce impacts from non-native invasive species; and (6) improve or maintain 

water and sediment quality. 

Since its inception, ERP has funded more than 400 ecosystem restoration projects 

totaling nearly $480 million. The number of projects and funds allocated is one way 

of measuring ERP progress, and it is worth noting that most ERP-funded projects 

meet more than one ERP goal. Therefore, the information in the following Table is 

based upon the topic areas which interconnect the ERP goals.

ERP PROJECTS BY TOPIC AREA AND FUNDING ALLOCATION 1

Topic name Amount 

(millions) Percentage # Projects 

Fish Screens and Passages .................................. $112 23% 67

Local Watershed Stewardship ............................. $18 4% 50

Ecosystem Water and Sediment Quality ............ $39 8% 47

Shallow Water Tidal and Marsh Habitat ........... $62 13% 37

Environmental Education .................................... $8 2% 34

Fishery Assessments ............................................ $9 2% 25

Restoration of Multiple Habitats ......................... $61 13% 28

Channel Dynamics and Sediment Transport ..... $47 10% 26

Non-Native Invasive Species ............................... $7 1% 23

Riparian Habitat ................................................... $22 5% 21

Floodplains and Bypasses .................................... $15 3% 12

Uplands and Wildlife Friendly Agriculture ........ $45 10% 7

Special Status Species .......................................... $14 3% 12

Environmental Water Management .................... $6 1% 3

Natural Flow Regimes .......................................... $11 2% 9

75

ERP PROJECTS BY TOPIC AREA AND FUNDING ALLOCATION 1—Continued

Topic name Amount 

(millions) Percentage # Projects 

Totals ....................................................... $476 100% 401

1 ERP figures include state, Federal and California Urban Water User funding sources. 

One of the key successes of the CALFED Bay-Delta program was the recent (September 22, 2003) removal of the Sacramento splittail from the Federal threatened 

and endangered species list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found that 

threats to the species are being addressed through habitat restoration actions such 

as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act, and that as a result, the splittail is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Two projects, the Staten Island Project and the Robinson Ranch Merced River 

Salmon Restoration Project, illustrate both the progress of the ERP and its commitment to integrating ecosystem restoration goals with other Program element goals. 

The Staten Island Project is a prime example of wildlife-friendly agriculture and habitat protection. In 2001, ERP contributed $35 million (one-half of the purchase 

price) to help acquire Staten Island to allow for a contiguous habitat corridor reaching from Stone Lakes to the Mokelumne Forks confluence. This corridor was one 

identified in CALFED planning documents. Staten Island, now part of the 

Cosumnes River Preserve, provides winter habitat for sandhill cranes and other waterfowl, while a 9,200 acre wildlife-friendly farm continues operation under the auspices of The Nature Conservancy. As part of its wildlife-friendly operations, parts 

of Staten Island are periodically inundated with water which reduces the threat of 

catastrophic flooding in the North Delta. The Staten Island Project contributes to 

local economic stability by keeping farmland in production, enhancing wildlife tourism opportunities, and supporting Delta flood protection efforts. 

The Robinson Ranch Merced River Salmon Restoration Project is an example of 

how agencies such as the USFWS, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Merced 

River Stakeholders Group and the landowner, Robinson Ranch, Inc. collaborated to 

restore Merced River reaches crucial to salmon spawning and rearing that were degraded as a result of floods, mining, and other activities. This multi-phased project 

addressed reconstruction of the river channel to scale the new channel form to 

match current, post-dam flows. By doing this, the flow of the river is refocused to 

self-maintain spawning beds and other restored habitats. The Robinson Ranch 

Merced River Salmon Restoration Project supports the understanding that when 

habitat is sustained, even at lower than historic flows, both ecosystem function and 

water supply reliability goals can be met. In this instance, the restored reach of the 

Merced River supports 25 percent of the salmon spawning of the entire river. Both 

wildlife and agriculture benefit from this project, which serves as an example of 

what can be achieved with a farmer who is an active and willing partner and beneficiary of restoration efforts. 

The CALFED ROD commits the implementing agencies to integrating their activities with other program elements. The ERP is accomplishing this integration and 

linkages through the ‘‘Single Blueprint’’ concept for restoration and species recovery 

within the geographic scope of the ERP. The Single Blueprint is not so much a single document as it is the shared vision of ecosystem restoration that is sustained 

through collaboration and cooperation among ERP, the Implementing Agencies, 

other CALFED agencies and stakeholders. 

Certain ecosystem restoration activities we are implementing pursuant to the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), commonly referred to as Category 

A&B projects, are coordinated through the Single Blueprint and support the goals 

and objectives of the CALFED ERP. Implementation of CVPIA activities have resulted in positive effects to the numerous species and habitat types throughout the 

Central Valley ecosystem. The investment and results of the CVPIA Category A&B 

program activities organized by the authorizing section of the legislation are as follows: 

Anadromous Fish—Habitat Restoration ($124 million investment). 

3406(b)(1)—Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Established AFRP, developed 

Restoration Plan to guide implementation of efforts; partnered with local watershed 

groups; acquired over 8,200 acres and enhanced over 1,000 acres of riparian habitat; 

restored over 5—6 miles of stream channel and placed 62,300 tons of spawning 

gravels; eliminated predator habitat in San Joaquin River tributaries; and provided 

for fish protective devices at seven diversion structures on Butte Creek. 

76

3406(b)(1)—Habitat Restoration Program. Established Habitat Restoration Program and San Joaquin River Riparian Habitat Restoration Program; helped acquire 

conservation easements on 88,364 acres of native habitat and restore 1,111 acres. 

3406(b)(2)—Dedicated CVP Yield. Up to 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley 

Project water has been applied each year to improve stream flows for salmon, 

steelhead, and other fish on the Sacramento, American, and Stanislaus rivers and 

on Clear Creek. This water has also been used to increase survival of juvenile anadromous fish passing through the Delta on their way to the sea, and to assist the 

CVP to meet endangered species and water quality obligations. 

3406(b)(3)—Water Acquisition Program (Anadromous Fish Focus). Acquired 

913,952 acre-feet of water for anadromous fish from 1993-2002. 

3406(b)(12)—Clear Creek Fishery Restoration. Removed Saeltzer Dam and diversion; increased flows; restored 2.0 miles of stream channel and 68 acres of floodplain; added 54,000 tons of spawning gravel; 152 acres of shaded fuelbreak have 

been constructed and 12 miles of roadway treated to control erosion. 

3406(b)(13)—Gravel Replenishment and Riparian Habitat Protection. Developed 

long-term plans for CVP streams; placed 111,488 tons of gravel in Sacramento, 

American and Stanislaus Rivers. 

3406(b)(23)—Trinity River Fishery Flow Evaluation Program. Conducted flow 

evaluation studies; completed EIR/EIS to analyze range of alternatives for restoring 

and maintaining fish populations downstream from Lewiston Dam; Record of Decision signed December 2000; completing Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as directed by Federal court order. SEIS scheduled to be completed by July 

2004. 

Anadromous Fish—Structural Measures ($264.6 million investment) 

3406(b)(4)—Tracy Pumping Plant Mitigation. Improved predator removal; increased biological oversight of pumping; developed better research program, new lab 

and aquaculture facilities; improved and modified existing facilities. 

3406(b)(5)—Contra Costa Canal Pumping Plant Mitigation. Established cooperative program for fish screen project for Rock Slough intake of Contra Costa Canal; 

90% designs and environmental evaluation completed. New short-term, low-cost 

mitigation measures are being developed to allow for an extension of the construction completion date. Final design and construction pending results of CALFED 

Stage 1 and other studies. 

3406(b)(6)—Shasta Temperature Control Device. Completed in 1997at a cost of 

$80 million. Has been operated to reduce river temperatures without stopping power 

generation operations (power revenue sales as a result of implementing the Shasta 

TCD are estimated to be $25 million/yr). 

3406(b)(10)—Red Bluff Dam Fish Passage Program. Completed interim actions 

and modification of Red Bluff Diversion Dam to meet needs of fish and water users; 

studies of fish passage alternatives is ongoing. Given guidance by the court on the 

timing of ESA and NEPA compliance activities, work on the EIS/EIR was suspended 

pending completion of the ESA consultation for the CVP as a whole, and the OCAP 

consultation. A final EIS/EIR is now anticipated in FY04. 

3406(b)(11)—Coleman National Fish Hatchery Restoration and Keswick Fish Trap 

Modification. Construction of Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery—the newly 

constructed hatchery contains facilities for broodstock holding, spawning, and 

rearing. The production capacity of the facility is about 250,000 juveniles. Between 

30,000 and 250,000 juveniles have been reared at the facility annually since it was 

constructed. As a result primarily of the release of brood year 1998, it has been estimated that about 300 hatchery-origin winter-run chinoolk salmon adults from this 

program returned to the upper Sacramento River in 2001

3406(b)(17)—Anderson-Cottonwood I.D. Fish Passage. Modified dam and operations to improve fish passage; designed new fish ladders and screens. 

3406(b)(20)—Glenn-Colusa I.D. Pumping Plant. Constructed fish screen for 3,000 

cfs diversion; completed water control structure and access bridge. Completed improvements on side channel. 

3406(b)(21)—Anadromous Fish Screen Program. Established program; installed 17 

screens and 3 fish ladders at diversions totaling 3,200 cfs capacity; removed 4 dams 

and 1 4 diversions. Three screens under construction, others in design. Once the 

screens under construction and in design are completed, Reclamation will have 

screened 75% of the diverted water on the Sacramento River. 

RESPONSES OF BENNETT RALEY TO QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DOMENICI

Question 1. In your testimony, you note that appropriations for the Calfed Program are unlikely to reach S. 1097’s $880 million authorization level. 

77

What is a reasonable federal appropriation target for fiscal years 2004 through 

2007? 

Answer. We cannot speculate as to a level of appropriations for future years, as 

those decisions must be made in the context of future budgets; our statement regarding the $880 million is based on our experience with recent CALFED budgets. 

The CBDA has launched an effort to re-examine the project milestones in the existing ROD to more realistically reflect likely funding and pace of the program. 

Question 2. It is my understanding that S. 1097 will not solve all of California’s 

water problems. Instead, these are numerous California water projects that are not 

included in the 2000 ROD. 

What California water issues are resolved by S. 1097? 

Answer. Your understanding is correct. The proposed legislation sets out the 

CALFED BayDelta Program Record of Decision as a framework within which the 

implementing agencies will undertake actions within the CALFED Bay-Delta solution area to protect drinking water quality, restoring ecological health, improving 

water supply reliability, and protecting and ensuring the integrity of Delta levees 

in a balanced manner. There are numerous other water management activities 

going on in California that, while compatible with CALFED, are for the most part 

not connected. 

What additional authorization requests should the Committee anticipate for other 

California water projects? 

Answer. Depending on the findings and conclusions of the surface storage feasibility studies, construction authorization may be requested. It is difficult to anticipate future needs for Congressional action on other California water projects. 

Question 3. From your testimony, it seems that the federal government already 

possesses most of the authorities needed to implement the Calfed Program. 

If that is the case, what is the most appropriate form for any Calfed legislation 

approved by this Committee? 

Answer. The Federal agencies have been able to rely on over fifty existing authorities (passed by Congress) that continue to enable Federal agency participation. The 

key areas in which additional authorization is necessary are as follows: 

Environmental Water Account (EWA)—Authorization is required to implement a 

long-term EWA in a fashion that supports the vision and flexibility envisioned in 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD). The establishment and 

successful operation of a long-term EWA will be one of the most significant accomplishments of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in reducing the conflicts between 

fisheries and water project operators. 

Levee Stability Program—Authorization is necessary for feasibility study for risk 

assessment strategy, Delta Emergency management plan, dredged material reuse on 

Delta Islands, and best management practices to control and reverse land subsidence is needed as noted in the ROD. 

Implement Conveyance Program Elements—Authorization is needed for feasibility 

studies for the increased pumping to 10,300 cfs at H.O. Banks Pumping Plant, fish 

screen and intake at Clifton Court, and San Luis Reservoir Low Point Project. 

Ecosystem Restoration Program Financial Assistance—Authorization is needed to 

carry out the Ecosystem Restoration Program activities through the use of grants 

and cooperative agreements with non-Federal entities 

Cross-Cut Appropriation—Interior supports the concept of a cross-cut appropriation which we believe will reduce inefficiencies and further improve Federal agency 

participation and recognition of implementation requirements. A cross-cut appropriation would more accurately reflect the contributions of the participating Federal 

agencies and lessen the risk to other Reclamation funded programs and projects in 

the Western states. 

Question 4. The process followed by the federal-state working group to develop the 

CALFED Program included negotiating a complex suite of inter-related projects, 

issuing the Record of Decision, developing a State-based management organization, 

building financial and public support, and implementing a myriad of important 

state water policy modifications. 

Do you feel that this approach is an appropriate template for other Federal-State 

water management relationships? 

Answer. Yes. While this approach and adaptive process was developed in response 

to the complex and competing resource needs of California its fundamental elements 

and processes could work well elsewhere. The Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee 

provides an effective coordination structure to facilitate stakeholder involvement in 

CALFED Program implementation. However, the newly formed state oversight 

agency, the California Bay-Delta Authority, does pose several complex legal and institutional issues between the state and Federal implementing agencies that effect 

management of the Program. 

78

Based on experience to date, what would you do to improve the process? 

Answer. The cooperative and collaborative approach to problem-solving is a hallmark of the CALFED Program. We continue to grapple with the evolving state and 

Federal agency institutional and legal roles in implementing the Program. 

(79)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY, 

Stockton, CA, October 28, 2003. 

Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 1097

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The South Delta Water Agency is writing to express 

our appreciation for your efforts to resolve water related problems in California. At 

this time, Delta interests are negotiating with Central Valley Project and State 

Water Project Contractors to try and resolve some of the ongoing issues involved 

with the export of water from the Delta. Although the negotiations are encouraging, 

fundamental differences have yet to be worked out. In light of those differences, as 

well as the areas of agreement, we recommend that proposed legislation regarding 

CALFED not move forward at this time as the negotiations anticipate changes or 

additions to CALFED’s Record of Decision. Notwithstanding this position, we offer 

the following suggestions which we believe would clarify and strengthen the bill 

without changing its intent and fundamental content. These comments do not include some of the other issues in our discussions, many of which we would eventually seek to have in legislation. 

Our suggestions relate primarily to three issues. First, CALFED’s premise of ‘‘all 

parties getting better together’’ does not take into account how the export projects 

have adversely impacted third parties. It is our position that Delta interests should 

not ‘‘get better’’ along with other interests, but rather should first be protected from 

the adverse impacts caused by exports. Hence, providing full mitigation to the 

projects’ impacts should occur before the projects are allowed to increase exports or 

export rates. We believe our negotiations will soon define the Delta protections that 

must and can reasonably be provided to assure that the Delta’s in-channel water 

supply and quality are adequately protected from the impacts of existing and proposed exports, and also provisions to reduce the over-commitment of New Melones 

water yield that has resulted from CVP operations. Our suggestions are compatible 

with our negotiations. Second, the suggestions are to help correct the confusion that 

has resulted from a prevalent belief that water storage capacity results in an increase in water supply regardless of whether the storage is filled with water that 

would otherwise be lost, such as by capturing excess Delta outflow. Storage can be 

used for other purposes, but can’t increase water supply if it is filled with water 

that is basically just reallocated in time or in purpose of use. Third, we propose 

some additions to the CALFED reporting requirements. We believe these additions 

are needed in order for Congress to be adequately informed on both the direct and 

the indirect consequences of the Program. 

Our suggestions are as follows:

[Note: The suggested changes have been retained in subcommittee files.]

Again, our negotiations with export interests anticipate changes to the CALFED 

ROD and programs thereunder. Until such negotiations are finalized, we do not 

think any legislation should go forward at this time as we will be proposing additional specifics for such legislation. We do believe the parties’ negotiations will be 

completed sometime near the end of November, and we will then know better the 

areas of agreement and disagreement. Notwithstanding this, the above suggestions 

are an indication of our position on what needs to be done through the CALFED 

process. We also want to thank you again for your past discussions with us on varVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:34 Mar 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\92-207 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
80

1State Water Permits under Applications Nos. 5627, 15374, 15376, 16767 and 16768 (September 16, 1959). 2 Condition 8. ‘‘Permittee shall at all times bypass or release over, around or through Lewiston 

Dam the following quantities of water down the natural channel of Trinity River for the protection, preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife from said dam to the mouth of said 

stream;

October 1 through October 31—200 cfs 

November 1 through November 30—250 cfs 

December 1 through December 31—200 cfs 

January 1 through September 30—150 cfs

Any water released through said Lewiston Dam for use in the fish hatchery now under construction adjacent thereto shall be considered as partial fulfillment of the above schedule.’’ 3 Condition 9. ‘‘Permittee shall release sufficient water from Trinity and/or Lewiston Reservoirs into the Trinity River so that not less than an annual quantity of 50,000 acre-feet will 

be available for the beneficial use of Humboldt County and other downstream users.’’

ious matters, including your discussions on flood control and estate taxes with Alex 

Hildebrand. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN HERRICK, 

Counsel and Manager. 

STATEMENT CLIFFORD LYLE MARSHALL, CHAIRMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE, HOOPA, CA 

Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Subcommittee, the Hoopa Valley Tribe 

respectfully requests that the Congress not extend authorization of the Calfed program prior to implementation of the Trinity River restoration record of decision consistent with existing federal statutes, including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 

Throughout California and in many parts of the Nation, the Trinity River is recognized as one of the last wild and scenic rivers in America. It is a natural resource 

treasure that should be protected for the benefit of all Americans. For communities 

of the North Coast, the Trinity River supports a regional economy based on commercial and sport fishing, recreation and tourism. Most importantly from the perspective of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Trinity River is central to our religion and culture, and it is the source of our fishery on which we have depended since time immemorial. 

The United States Bureau of Reclamation formally proposed diversion of the Trinity River to the Central Valley in 1952. Having been advised by the Secretary of 

the Interior that slightly more than 50% of the Trinity’s flow at Lewiston, California, would be diverted and that the balance would remain available for release 

to the Trinity River, Congress authorized the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the 

Central Valley Project (CVP) in 1955. To this day, the Trinity River is the only 

source of CVP water that is imported to the Central Valley. 

In order to protect North Coast communities from the effects of the Trinity River 

Division, Congress expressly limited diversions from the Trinity River to that water 

deemed by the Secretary to be surplus to the needs of Trinity River basin fish and 

wildlife and communities downstream of Lewiston Dam. 

The State of California issued a number of permits associated with the Trinity 

River Division in 1959.1 Among the conditions established by the state in the permits were Condition 8 2 and Condition 9 3 that, consistent with Congress’ instruction, recognized and protected the area of origin interests of Trinity/Klamath River 

basin. 

Tragically, upon completion of the Trinity River Division in 1964, the Bureau of 

Reclamation instead diverted up to 90% of the Trinity’s flow at Lewiston with immediate and devastating effects on the fishery. Trinity River fish species today are listed or are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Tribal, sport, and 

commercial fishing interests, along with federal, state, and local governments have 

spent the last 35 years working to restore the river and limit diversions to what 

Congress originally intended. 

In a series of laws, the United States Congress acted to restore the Trinity River 

fishery to those population levels that existed prior to construction of the Trinity 

River Division. The ‘‘Trinity River Flow Evaluation—Final Report’’ was completed 

in June 1999, and the Secretary of the Interior, with the support of the State of 

California and the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, adopted the Report’s fishery flow requirements in December 2000. 

81

The fishery flows require 47% of the Trinity’s average annual flow; the remaining 

53% is available for diversion to the Central Valley, practically the same volume 

originally intended to be diverted by the Bureau of Reclamation when it proposed 

the project in the 1950s. 

Regrettably, the Bureau of Reclamation has been barred from releasing the water 

needed for trinity River restoration as a result of litigation filed by the Westlands 

Water District and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, among others. 

That litigation is now pending in the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The State 

of California has filed a brief in support of the Trinity River restoration decision. 

In the meantime, Trinity restoration remains on hold; it is now seven years past 

the deadline Congress set for the Secretary to get the restoration program underway. 

On July 18, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Resources Agency completed a 

‘‘Draft Proposition Concerning CVP/SWP Integrated Operations’’, also known as the 

‘‘Napa Proposal’’. Certain aspects of the Napa Proposal require enactment of authorizations provided for in S. 1097. We believe that, in its present form, the Napa Proposal is likely to generate misunderstanding and future causes of controversy over 

the relationship between the coordinated operation of the federal and state water 

projects in the Central Valley and the priority established under federal and state 

law to water from the Trinity River Division for: (1) fish and wildlife preservation 

and propagation in the Trinity River; and (2) other beneficial uses of water by Humboldt County and users downstream of Trinity River Division facilities. 

The Napa Proposal, among other things, will enable increased exports of water 

from the San Francisco Bay Delta through coordinated operation of the State Water 

Project and the Central Valley Project. Nothing in the Napa Proposal or S. 1097 recognizes the fact that the restoration of the Trinity River requires a reduction in the 

diversions of Trinity River water to the Central Valley. 

It is generally understood that the Westlands Water District and San Luis and 

Delta-Mendota Water Authority will be major beneficiaries of the increased Delta 

exports enabled by the Napa Proposal if implemented by means of the authority and 

funding provided for in S. 1097. Westlands Water District and San Luis and DeltaMendota Water Authority have recently proposed reductions in the planned Trinity 

River flows in order to increase the benefits they expect from the Napa Proposition. 

The Department of the Interior and the Hoopa Valley Tribe rejected the reductions 

because they lacked acceptable scientific justification. We do not believe that the 

Congress should make the benefits of Calfed available to those entities so long as 

they persist with their attacks against Trinity River restoration. 

Governor Davis’ administration addressed the Napa Proposal in an October 2, 

2003, letter (attached) from Resources Secretary Mary Nichols to Senators Feinstein 

and Boxer, in which Secretary Nichols stated:

nothing in the Napa Proposal jeopardizes implementation of the Trinity River 

Record of Decision (ROD). In fact, the proposed revisions to the SWP/CVP Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) assume that the Trinity River ROD will be implemented as envisioned in December 2000. 

The State continues to support the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes, and Trinity 

County in their efforts to implement the Trinity River ROD . . . We believe the 

instream flow schedule in the Trinity River ROD is the foundation for restoration of the Trinity River and its native fish, and we will insist this issue is settled prior to implementation of the Napa proposal.

We are grateful for Secretary Nichols position, but we have no indication whether 

California’s incoming administration will adhere to it. At the same time, the Bureau 

of Reclamation has informally advised us that the Napa Proposal could be implemented without the need to reduce the amounts of water from the Trinity River Division needed for fishery restoration. However, the Bureau has declined to give us 

written reassurance to that effect, notwithstanding that federal and state laws 

clearly give priority to Trinity basin water needs over diversions to the Central Valley. 

Our Tribe never intended to be drawn into Central Valley water management 

issues. But because of Westlands attack on our fishery, implementation of Trinity 

restoration may well be delayed until after planning decisions are made with respect to the Napa proposal, long-term Central Valley Project contracts have been renewed, and a revised operating plan for the state and federal water projects has 

been adopted. We cannot stand by while Central Valley planning decisions are made 

that potentially leave our rights at risk. 

This is especially true in view of the final National Research Council Report, ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and 

82

Strategies for Recovery (October 21, 2003). The report at pages 250-253 makes the 

following points (all are quotations):

Trinity River flows influence water temperature and quality in the lower 

Klamath River and its estuary (p. 250). 

The Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam and the Trinity River have the 

same fish fauna, including runs of salmon . . . salmon and steelhead from the 

two systems continuously mix. Id. 

Immigrating spawning adults and emigrating smolts from the Trinity River 

rely on lower Klamath River water temperature and quality to support their 

success in terms of egg quality, osmoregulatory ability, and survival. Id. 

Efforts to conserve coho salmon and other declining fishes must take both systems into account. Id. 

[T]he Secretary of the Interior in December 2000 issued a Record of Decision 

(ROD) recognizing that long-term sustainability of the Trinity River’s fishery resources requires rehabilitation of the river (p. 251-252). 

The ROD calls for specific annual flows designed to vary with water-year type 

and patterned to mimic natural variability in annual flows. (p. 252). 

Because of lawsuits by Central Valley water users challenging the EIS/EIR, 

however, the new flow regime has not yet been fully implemented. Id. 

It is vital that management of the Trinity River, including releases from 

Lewiston Dam, be viewed in the context of the entire Klamath watershed. The 

two systems are inextricably linked and are dependent upon each other for longterm success. Efforts are presently underway to use enhanced flow releases 

from the Trinity to reduce the likelihood of fish kills in the lower Klamath. This 

represents an important step forward in cooperative management for the sake 

of the entire basin, rather than a single component. (p. 252-253).

The foregoing statements by the National Research Council demonstrate the need 

to ensure that the waters of the Trinity River that are stored in the Trinity River 

Division of the CVP be released:

(1) as required by the ROD for the mainstem Trinity restoration and 

(2) as required for fishery protection in the lower Klamath and pursuant to 

Humboldt County’s 1959 CVP contract. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

RESOURCES AGENCY, 

Sacramento, CA, October 2, 2003. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Congress, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Congress, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC. 

SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND BOXER: I am writing to clarify the state’s position on 

the ‘‘Napa Proposal’’, which has been the subject of much interest and at times misunderstanding. The state agency participants in the California Bay-Delta Program 

have received several letters and questions from members of Congress, the California legislature, and interest groups. These letters and questions have raised valid 

concerns, and we take these concerns seriously. 

THE NAPA PROPOSAL IS NOT A DECISION DOCUMENT

The CALFED process is designed to include a broad range of stakeholders, collaboration among the State and federal agencies, and the development of solutions 

that address multiple benefits based on the best available information. I remain 

committed to maintaining this open and transparent process, but I also recognize 

that from time to time various stakeholder groups will caucus and develop proposals 

to be considered within the scope of the Bay-Delta Program as a whole. 

It is in the CALFED context that I believe the Napa Proposal was developed, and 

it is within this context that it should be considered. The Napa Proposal is not a 

CALFED decision document; it is a proposed set of State Water Project/Central Valley Project (SWP/CVP) operating rules that will be evaluated and considered as part 

of a larger set of actions to improve the water supply reliability, water quality, and 

ecosystem health of the Bay-Delta system. 

These actions, as described in the CALFED Record of Decision, include the South 

Delta Improvements Program (to increase the SWP’s pumping flexibility to 8,500 

cubic feet per second), the Environmental Water Account, the Delta Mendota Canal/

California Aqueduct Intertie, and related actions to protect water quality and local 

83

diverters in the Delta. Each of these actions will be fully evaluated and reviewed 

through CEQA and NEPA, through the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, and 

through other public processes established by the California Bay-Delta Authority 

(Authority). 

SWP AND CVP OPERATIONS MUST BE BETTER COORDINATED TO MEET THE MULTIPLE

OBJECTIVES OF THE CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

The Authority agencies have been working since the fall of 2002 to coordinate and 

integrate the assumptions and schedules of the above actions, so that elected officials, stakeholders, and the public have a better understanding of their costs, benefits, and impacts. But as the discussions continued, it became clear that progress 

would be stalled and that fewer water supply, water quality, and environmental 

benefits would be achieved through these actions unless the SWP and CVP worked 

to better coordinate their operations. As a result of the Napa discussions, we now 

have a proposal that may accomplish that goal, and a renewed commitment to support an integrated package of state and federal actions. 

During the last two months, the Authority agencies and stakeholders have been 

working closely to analyze the impacts of the Napa Proposal with hydrologic and 

biologic modeling, together with other elements of the South Delta Improvements 

Program and alternative approaches to develop a long-term Environmental Water 

Account. These analyses will be fully described in draft environmental review documents to be issued for public review and comment later this year. Following an extensive public review process, the agencies expect to issue an integrated set of final 

decisions, together with a financing plan, in the summer of 2004. I remain confident 

that this integrated set of actions will significantly improve water supply reliability, 

water quality, and ecosystem health of the Bay-Delta system. 

THE STATE CONTINUES TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRINITY RIVER ROD

It is important to note that nothing in the Napa Proposal jeopardizes implementation of the Trinity River Record of Decision (ROD). In fact, the proposed revisions 

to the SWP/CVP Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) assume that the Trinity 

River ROD will be implemented as envisioned in December 2000. 

The State continues to support the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes, and Trinity County 

in their efforts to implement the Trinity River ROD, including the development of 

the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as required by court order. We 

believe the instream flow schedule in the Trinity River ROD is the foundation for 

restoration of the Trinity River and its native fish, and we will insist this issue is 

settled prior to implementation of the Napa proposal. 

Thank you for your continued support of the California Bay-Delta Program and 

efforts to provide for its federal authorization. If you have any further questions, 

please contact me directly or Tim Ramirez, Assistant Secretary for Water Policy and 

Science, in my office. 

Yours sincerely, 

MARY D. NICHOLS, 

Secretary for Resources.

As a means of disentangling the Trinity River’s prior entitlement to water from 

the Trinity River Division from Central Valley water resources planning, the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe seeks legislation to permit prompt implementation of the Trinity restoration program. (Attached.) 

So long as the Trinity restoration program remains stalled, the Tribe will continue 

to intervene in matters involving California water planning that affect tribal trust 

resources. Our goal is a guarantee that federal and state laws that give priority to 

the use of Trinity River Division water for in-basin needs over exports to the Central Valley will be fully enforced as set forth in the Trinity River Record of Decision. 

The proposed legislation attached to this testimony would do that. 

Thank you for your attention to our concerns. 

ATTACHMENTS

Proposed Legislation Regarding Trinity River Record of Decision 

Section 1. 

The purposes of this Act are to meet: 

(a) Federal trust responsibilities to protect tribal fishery resources; and 

(b) Fishery restoration goals referred to in section 3406 (b)(23) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, 106 Stat. 4706 (October 30, 

1992).

84

Section 2.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the record of decision by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service entitled ‘‘Trinity River Mainstem Fishery 

Restoration’’, issued by the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the 

Hoopa Valley Tribe on December 19, 2000 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘record 

of decision’’), shall be considered to comply with all provisions of law under which, 

and subject to which, the record of decision was issued. 

(b) Upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, and any other person with respect to which the record of decision describes any right, authority, or 

obligation, shall implement and otherwise comply with the record of decision. 

(c) The Secretary shall incorporate the record of decision into any review of the 

operation of the Central Valley Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

Æ