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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72-805 PDF 2013

WATER FOR OUR FUTURE AND 

JOB CREATION: EXAMINING 

REGULATORY AND BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS TO NEW 

SURFACE STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 

Serial No. 112-92 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 ......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

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

California, Oral statement of ....................................................................... 10 

Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 81 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

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

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

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

Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 11 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bettner, Thaddeus, P.E., General Manager, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 

District, Willows, California ......................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Brown, Jerry, General Manager, Contra Costa Water District, Concord, 

California ....................................................................................................... 39 

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

Gabaldon, Michael, Director of Technical Resources, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver Technical Center, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Denver, Colorado ........................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Gardner, Hon. Cory, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 17 

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

O’Toole, Pat, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery, Wyoming .............. 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Semanko, Norman M., Executive Director and General Counsel, Idaho 

Water Users Association, Boise, Idaho ....................................................... 44 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46 

Additional materials supplied: 

Guy, David J., President, Northern California Water Association, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 82 

Keiser, Austin M., President, Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District, 

Cedaredge, Colorado, Letter submitted for the record .............................. 12 

Midcap, Bill, Director of Renewable Energy Center, Rocky Mountain 

Farmers Union, Denver, Colorado, Letter submitted for the record ........ 6 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘WATER FOR OUR 

FUTURE AND JOB CREATION: EXAMINING 

REGULATORY AND BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS TO NEW SURFACE STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE.’’ 

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 

Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom 

McClintock [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Gosar, Labrador; 

Napolitano, Costa, and Garamendi. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The hour of 10:00 has arrived, and the 

Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. I would ask 

unanimous consent that the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Gardner, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate 

in the hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Hearing no objections, so ordered. We will 

begin with five-minute opening statements by myself and the 

Ranking Member of the Water and Power Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee on Water and Power meets 

today to consider what steps need to be taken to remove government-imposed impediments to the construction of new dams and 

reservoirs. 

The need for action can be summarized quite succinctly: The 

Bureau of Reclamation has built over 600 dams and reservoirs in 

the last century, but two-thirds of them were built in the first 60 

years of its existence—more than 50 years ago. With one exception, 

Reclamation has not built any major dams or reservoirs in the last 

generation. 

And now, under this Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation 

is actually moving to tear down perfectly good dams to placate the 

most extreme elements of the environmental left. This shift of purpose is fast becoming a direct and imminent threat, not only to the 

prosperity of the West, but to our very ability to support our population. For example, California’s 37 million people now rely on a 

water system built to support a population of just 22 million. 

Last year, this Subcommittee focused on the release or diversion 

of billions of gallons of desperately needed water to meet absurd 

environmental regulations. But that’s just part of the man-made 

2 

drought that is gripping the West. The other part is the panoply 

of Federal regulations that makes the construction of new storage 

cost prohibitive. 

Last year, California had one of the wettest winters on record. 

So far this year, it has had one of the driest. Last year, billions of 

gallons had to be released simply because we had no place to store 

the surplus water. If the drought continues for another year, we 

will rue the decisions that denied us the additional storage capacity 

that would have saved that water. 

As we will hear, major projects have been hamstrung because of 

litigation and regulatory excesses stemming from 1970’s-era legislation. Three years ago, this Subcommittee traveled to Colorado, 

which was in the grips of a chronic water shortage. There we 

learned that if the Two Forks project had not been blocked in this 

manner, they would have had no water shortage at all. 

Apologists for the status quo tell us the dams are too expensive. 

They blissfully ignore the fact that it is precisely these excessive 

regulations—having nothing to do with dam safety—that have 

needlessly and artificially driven up the cost. 

It is true that dams impede the migration of certain species of 

fish, a problem that is easily and economically addressed through 

down-stream fish hatcheries. Yet hatchery fish are often not included in ESA population counts, despite the fact there is no more 

genetic difference between hatchery fish and fish born in the wild 

than there is between a baby born in the hospital and a baby born 

at home. Indeed, it was the construction of dams that made possible the year-round cold-water flows so conducive to thriving fish 

populations. The dams tamed the environmentally devastating 

cycle of floods and droughts that once plagued these habitats. 

Nor will conservation measures such as recycling or rationing address our needs. As we will hear, there are limits to what conservation alone can do to address this shortage, and handing out taxpayer grants for toilet exchanges and rock gardens isn’t going meet 

the next generation’s needs. Title 16 recycling legislation in the last 

Congress cost twice as much as imported water to the same regions. 

Conservation is what you do to manage a shortage. It is the government’s responsibility to alleviate and prevent that shortage. 

That means that this generation must summon the common sense 

and resolve that the greatest generation used to build the infrastructure that we still rely upon today. That means returning to 

the sound principles of finance that produced this infrastructure: 

hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis and restoring the beneficiary pays 

principle that the actual users of these projects pay for them in 

proportion to their use. 

We have squandered enormous amounts of money and precious 

time proving that the policies of the 1970’s do not work, and we 

are now facing devastating water shortages as the cost of that lesson. It is a generation whose folly resembles Edward Gibbon’s description of ‘‘decent easy men, who supinely enjoyed the gifts of the 

founder.’’ Those days need to end now. 

It is time to open a new chapter in the history of the West, that 

a new generation recovered and restored the vision of abundance 

3 

of its forebears and finished the job described by the founder of the 

Bureau of Reclamation as ‘‘making the desert bloom.’’ 

With that I yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

The Subcommittee on Water and Power meets today to consider what steps need 

to be taken to remove government-imposed impediments to the construction of new 

dams and reservoirs. 

The need for action can be summarized quite succinctly: The Bureau of Reclamation has built over 600 dams and reservoirs in the last century, but two-thirds of 

them were built in the first 60 years of its existence—more than 50 years ago. With 

one exception, Reclamation has not built any major dams or reservoirs in the last 

generation. 

And now, under this Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation is actually moving to tear down perfectly good dams to placate the most extreme elements of the 

environmental left. 

This shift of purpose is fast becoming a direct and imminent threat not only to 

the prosperity of the West, but to our very ability to support our population. For 

example, California’s 37 million people now rely on a water system built to support 

a population of just 22 million. 

Last year, this Subcommittee focused on the release or diversion of billions of gallons of desperately needed water to meet absurd environmental regulations. 

But that’s just part of the man-made drought that is gripping the West. The other 

part is the panoply of federal regulations that makes the construction of new storage cost prohibitive. 

Last year, California had one of the wettest winters on record. So far this year, 

it has had one of the driest. Last year, billions of gallons of water had to be released 

simply because we had no place to store that surplus water. If the drought continues for another year, we will rue the decisions that denied us the additional storage capacity that would have saved that water. 

As we will hear, major projects have been hamstrung because of litigation and 

regulatory excesses stemming from 1970’s era legislation. Almost two years ago, this 

Subcommittee travelled to Colorado which was in the grips of a chronic water shortage. There, we learned that if the Two-Forks project had not been blocked in this 

manner, they would have had no water shortage. 

Apologists for the status quo tell us that dams are too expensive. They blissfully 

ignore the fact that it is precisely these excessive regulations—having nothing to do 

with dam safety—that have needlessly and artificially driven up the cost. 

It is true that dams impede the migration of certain species of fish—a problem 

that is easily and economically addressed through down-stream fish hatcheries. Yet 

hatchery fish are often not included in ESA population counts despite the fact there 

is no more genetic difference between hatchery fish and fish born in the wild than 

there is between a baby born at the hospital and a baby born at home. 

Indeed, it was the construction of dams that made possible the year-round coldwater flows so conducive to thriving fish populations. The dams tamed the environmentally devastating cycle of floods and droughts that once plagued these habitats. 

Nor will conservation measures such as recycling and rationing address our 

needs. As we will hear, there are limits to what conservation alone can do to address this shortage, and handing out taxpayer grants for toilet exchanges and rock 

gardens isn’t going meet the next generation’s needs. Title 16 recycling legislation 

in the last Congress cost twice as much as imported water to the same regions. 

Conservation is what you do to manage a shortage. It is the government’s responsibility to alleviate that shortage. And that means that this generation must summon the common sense and resolve that the greatest generation used to build the 

infrastructure that we still rely upon today. 

That means returning to the sound principles of finance that produced this infrastructure: hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis and restoring the beneficiary pays principle that the actual users of these projects pay for them in proportion to their use. 

We have squandered enormous amounts of money and precious time proving that 

the policies of the 1970’s do not work, and we now face devastating water shortages 

as the cost of that lesson. It was a generation whose folly resembles Edward Gibbon’s description of ‘‘Decent easy men, who supinely enjoyed the gifts of the founder.’’ Those days need to end now. 

4 

It is time to open a new chapter in the history of the West: that a new generation 

recovered and restored the vision of abundance of its forbearers and finished the job 

described by the founder of the Bureau of Reclamation as ‘‘making the desert 

bloom.’’ 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize; I have 

a full-blown cold, so stay away. 

I look forward and I really enjoy today’s hearing. I have no objection to the hearing, because it is based on storage. 

Evidently, from the testimony I read, the hearing only looks at 

one side of the coin, which is the new surface storage. It, as you 

pointed out, doesn’t look at groundwater conservation, the efficiencies like low-flush toilets, recycling, desalination, and of course, 

one major component, education. 

If we are looking for solutions to our water problems, and for certainty for our communities, we must have the full consideration of 

all options. All of them must be on the table. That includes storage 

and other alternatives, including increase of recycled water 

projects. 

The Bureau has constructed most of its nearly 200 projects prior 

to World War II, you are right. No argument about the impact Reclamation projects have had in the West. A combination of changing 

national priorities and local needs and the development of prime locations for surface storage projects have led us to look at different 

alternatives. Times have changed. 

The Majority will argue that the environmental regulations have 

hindered construction facilities in the West. That may be so. But 

then the world has changed. There is a bigger issue here, from 

moving from study to construction. I don’t hear as much about public-private partnerships or other areas. Even if you move from 

study to construction, how can we guarantee these communities the 

billions of Federal-appropriated dollars that are necessary for construction, when of the $22 billion Reclamation has spent on major 

projects in the decades, only 25 percent—or 5.2 billion—has been 

repaid? You are talking about 40-year loans interest free at taxpayer expense. You are asking the taxpayer to subsidize additional 

burden. 

Any authorization of new storage projects will have to compete 

for funding in Reclamation’s limited budget and add to the Federal 

debt associated with the water projects. The biggest impediment to 

dam construction is limited Federal funding. 

Again, I don’t hear much on public-private partnerships or the 

bonding at the local levels, nor of other areas, Native American 

rights, the aquifer studies for recharge—we only hear the overdrafting wastewater treatment upgrades,—farm water runoff cleanup, and some of those areas that are of great concern to me. 

Water managers have already realized they cannot wait to compete for the limited—very limited—Federal dollars or the decades 

it will take to construct the facility. They need to solve their problems now. For some communities, the surface water storage, like 

Contra Costa Water District’s Los Vaqueros Project, or the MetroVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
5 

politan Water District Diamond Valley Reservoir, done at their own 

expense. Los Vaqueros 60,000 acre-feet expansion will be on line 

this spring, project completed on time, on budget, with no litigation. Mr. Brown can speak more to the details of the Los Vaqueros 

Project. 

Water managers are looking for projects that involve limited Federal involvement. Less government, ladies and gentlemen, that can 

produce water on a faster, more timely scale. This can also be seen 

in the 53 water recycle projects Congress has authorized since 

1992. And they have yielded approximately half-a-million acre-feet. 

New storage, when appropriated, is not impossible. And California 

alone has added 5.6 million acre-feet in new groundwater and surface water storage in the last 20 years. And I will repeat, we have 

cut water usage in the Southern California area by conservation, 

recycling, and all of the above, using the same amount of water 

that we used three decades ago with three million more people. 

In this environment not all of the water needs in the West can 

or should be met by new dams or bigger dams. New storage is not 

always the answer. And the same can be said for water recycling 

or desalination. What works for one community may not work for 

others, and we must select the most effective and affordable solutions. 

The threat to our water supply is real. We face many challenges 

like climate change, decreased snowpack, increased demand, and 

the development of alternative water-intensive fuels like oil shale, 

and their need for water. To know the right solution for communities is to have all options on the table. Looking for just one surface storage does not provide our water managers with the baseline 

data they need to serve our communities. 

And for the record, Mr. Chair, I have a letter from the Rocky 

Mountain Farmers Union regarding the need to fund and prioritize 

aging infrastructure, and also the draft environmental impact 

statement on the Shasta expansion released yesterday. 

Now, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to this—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I assume you asking unanimous consent—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. In the record, without objection. 

[The letter submitted for the record by Mrs. Napolitano follows:] 

6 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I see in one 

of the statements that there is a reference to establishment of 

banks such as TIFIA. I have said that several times, I think we 

need a water infrastructure bank in the future to be able to do 

these projects. 

So with that I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward and have no objection to this hearing, with its emphasis on storage. 

This hearing, however, only looks at one side of the coin-it only looks at new surface 

storage. It does not look at groundwater storage, not efficiencies, not water recycling 

or desalination. 


72805.003.eps
7 

If we arere looking for solutions to our water problems and for certainty for our 

communities, then we must have a full consideration of all options—including storage or other alternatives like water recycling. 

The Bureau of Reclamation constructed most of its nearly 200 projects prior to 

World War II. There is no argument about the impact reclamation projects have had 

on the west. A combination of changing national priorities and local needs, as well 

as the development of prime locations for surface storage projects, has led us to look 

at different alternatives. 

The majority will argue that environmental regulations have hindered construction of new facilities in the west. There is a bigger issue here—from moving from 

study to construction—and that is cost. Even if you move from study to construction, 

how can you guarantee these communities the billions of federal appropriated dollars that is necessary for construction?? 

It is also important to note that of the 22 billion dollars Reclamation has spent 

on major water projects, only 25% or 5.2 billion has been repaid to the federal government. 

Any authorization of new storage projects will have to compete for funding in Reclamation’s limited budget AND add to the federal debt associated with water 

projects. 

The biggest impediment to dam construction is limited federal funding. 

Water managers have already realized that they cannot wait to compete for the 

limited federal dollars or the 10 or 20 years it will take to construct a facility. They 

need to solve their problems now. For some communities that includes surface water 

storage, like Contra Costa Water District’s Los Vaqueros project, or the Metropolitan Water District’s Diamond Valley Reservoir. The Los Vaqueros’ 60,000 acre-feet 

construction is expected to be completed this spring, on time, on budget and no litigation. Mr. Brown can speak to more details of the Los Vaqueros project today. 

Water managers are looking for projects that involve limited federal involvement 

that can produce water on a faster scale. This can also be seen in the 53 water recycling projects congress has authorized since 1992. 

New storage when appropriate is not impossible, California has added 5.6 million 

acre-feet in new groundwater and surface water storage in the last 20 years. 

In this environment not all of the water needs in the west can or should be met 

by new dams or bigger dams. New storage is not always the right answer, and the 

same can be said of water recycling or desalination. What works for one community 

may not work for others, and we must select the most effective AND affordable 

solution. 

The threat to our water supply is real. We many challenges like climate change, 

decreased snowpack, increased demand and the development of alternative water intensive fuels like Oil Shale. 

To know the right solution for the community is to have all the options on the 

table. Looking at just surface storage does not provide our water managers with the 

baseline data they need to serve our communities. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. The Committee is joined by the 

Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Congressman 

Doc Hastings of Washington, who I am told is celebrating his birthday today. For some very good reasons, we do not allow singing in 

this Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. However, I do believe I speak for all of us 

when I extend the Committee’s warmest best wishes to the Chairman, and recognize him for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this meeting, and for the Ranking Member, I would suggest you 

take some hot water and honey and something else. That really 

does help. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to have something else. 

Mr. HASTINGS. The something else is very good. 

8 

Water supply certainty has a profound and direct impact on Central Washington, where the economy is heavily dependent on irrigated agriculture. This region, which I have the honor to represent, 

is home to two large Federal water projects, one anchored by the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s Grand Coulee Dam. Together, these two 

projects irrigate more than a million acres of farmland, provide numerous recreation and flood control benefits, and provide over 21 

billion kilowatt hours of carbon-free, renewable hydroelectric power 

to customers throughout the West. 

Before these projects were constructed, this area was arid land 

where little but tumbleweeds would thrive. Today, it is one of the 

most productive and diverse agricultural areas in the world, providing more apples, pears, cherries, mint, and hops than in any 

other part of the country. Despite the successes of these projects 

and others in the West, they have been under constant assault 

from those with extreme agendas. Regulations and associated litigation have hijacked these projects, to the point where their very 

purposes have been compromised and the construction of new 

water storage to continue to meet the needs of those regions is 

nearly impossible to achieve. 

Water users throughout the West have been forced to stand by 

and watch powerlessly as increasingly burdensome Federal rules 

based on questionable science and never-ending litigation make it 

more and more difficult to continue to receive the water they need. 

Today we will hear from several witnesses who will describe a regulatory system gone awry. They will outline a painfully long permitting process that often takes longer to complete than actual 

project construction. In one example, permitting process required 

the examination of 52 project alternatives. To me, that sounds like 

more than a bit excessive. 

Our existing water supply is under strain and the demand is 

likely to increase. As bad as things are now, they are only going 

to get worse if the Obama Administration moves forward with their 

initiative to modify the Principles and Guidelines. The Principles 

and Guidelines provide standards that are critical in determining 

how Federal water infrastructure decisions are made and developed. Water users are justifiably concerned about this Administration’s efforts to elevate non-structural and environmental elements 

over economic and safety benefits in the planning phase of project 

development. This could undermine efforts to build new and rehabilitate old water infrastructure. 

My district is representative of much of the West; where water 

goes, jobs follow. On the flip side, when water does not reach farmers’ fields or orchards, jobs are destroyed. Agriculture is Central 

Washington’s leading employer, and is heavily dependant on a reliable water supply. 

According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Washington’s 1.7 million acres of irrigated crop land generate approximately $5 billion in crops sold each year, crops that feed 

America and the world. It is an area that is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the nation. 

It is this generation’s turn, as the Chairman noted, to recognize 

our growing water needs and take steps to meet it. Conservation 

will undoubtedly continue to play a role to meet our future water 

9 

needs, but it alone will not be enough. We must also embrace other 

water supply options, including building additional water storage. 

What America really needs an all-of-the-above-water supply strategy. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy, and 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Water supply certainty has a profound and direct impact on Central Washington 

where our economy is heavily dependent on irrigated agriculture. This region, which 

I have the honor to represent, is home to two large federal water projects in the 

West, one anchored by the Bureau of Reclamation Grand Coulee Dam. 

Together, these two projects irrigate more than a million acres of farmland, provide numerous recreation and flood control benefits and provide over 21 billion kilowatt hours of carbon-free, renewable hydroelectric power to customers throughout 

the United States. 

Before these projects were constructed, this area was an arid desert where little 

but tumbleweeds would thrive. Today, it is one of the most productive and diverse 

agricultural areas in the world, providing more apples, pears, cherries, mint and 

hops than in any other part of the country. 

Despite the successes of these projects and others in the West, they have been 

under constant assault from those with extreme agendas. Regulations and associated litigation have hijacked these projects, to the point where their very purposes 

have been compromised and the construction of new water storage to continue to 

meet the needs of these regions is nearly impossible to achieve. 

Water users throughout the West have been forced to stand by and watch powerlessly as increasingly burdensome federal rules based on questionable science and 

never-ending litigation make it more and more difficult to continue to receive the 

water they need 

Today, we will hear from several witnesses who will describe a regulatory system 

gone awry. They will outline a painfully long permitting process that often takes 

longer to complete than actual project construction. In one example this permitting 

process required the examination of 52 project alternatives. To me, that sounds 

more than a little excessive. 

Our existing water supply is under strain and the demand is likely to increase. 

As bad as things are now they are only going to get worse if the Obama Administration moves forward with their initiative to modify the Principles and Guidelines. 

The Principles and Guidelines provide standards that are critical in determining 

how federal water infrastructure decisions are made and developed. Water users are 

justifiably concerned about this Administration’s efforts to elevate non-structural 

and environmental elements over economic and safety benefits in the planning 

phase of project development. This could undermine efforts to build new, and rehabilitate old, water infrastructure. 

My district is representative of much of the West; where water goes, jobs follow. 

On the flip side, when water does not reach farmers’ fields or orchards, jobs are destroyed. Agriculture is Central Washington’s leading employer, supporting 160,000 

jobs statewide, and –is heavily dependent on a reliable water supply. 

According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington’s 1.7 million acres of irrigated crop land generate approximately $4.8 billion in crops sold 

each year—crops that feed America and the world. It is an area that is one of the 

most productive agricultural regions in the nation. 

It’s this generation’s turn to recognize our growing water needs and take steps 

to meet it. Conservation will undoubtedly continue to play a role to meet our future 

water needs, but it alone will not be enough. We must also embrace other water 

supply options, including building additional water storage. America needs an allof-the-above-water supply strategy. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. And it is the custom of this Subcommittee to receive opening statements from other Members who 

wish to make them. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Costa. 

10 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. I think it is appropriate, given the challenges we face 

in the West and in California about our near-term and long-term 

water needs, and surface supply is one, as I have said for many 

years, of the many water tools that we have in our water management toolbox to solve our long-term water needs. It is how we have 

historically solved our water needs. There is not one magic solution. It is a combination of solutions. 

And I would like to keep my comments for the purpose of my 

opening statement somewhat focused on California, which I know 

best, having chaired the Policy Committee in the State Legislature, 

and having worked on water for almost 30 years. 

In California, we have what many of us believe is a somewhat 

broken water system. And many of the new Members who are not 

from California will hear more about that. The problem is that we 

have a water system that was designed for about 20 million people. 

Today we have 38 million people. Estimated by the year 2030 we 

could have 50 to 60 million people living within the state. Our current water system is insufficient to satisfy our water needs for our 

urban cities, our agricultural communities, and to balance the 

needs to ensure that we can maintain healthy fisheries in an environment and an ecosystem that allows future Californians to enjoy 

it. 

I sense a common thread here. I mean all three of the opening 

statements talked about the need to use all the water management 

tools in our water toolbox. What gets difficult as we talk about surface storage supply this morning is where do we get the best bang 

for our buck. 

In California we have attempted to try to make efforts to assess 

which projects give us the best bang for our buck. The Bureau of 

Reclamation, under two Administrations now, President Bush’s Administration and now President Obama’s Administration, has studied three surface projects in California. Shasta actually—which was 

released today to be very feasible, economically, or to be a very 

positive potential, raising the dam 18 feet that would provide an 

additional 150,000 acre-feet of supply annually, plus the economic 

benefits at a cost of about $1 billion seem to be very favorable. 

We have also looked at enlarging Los Vaqueros, which is an 

offstream reservoir, for a second time that would extend its capacity. 

Temperance Flat, which the Bureau has been studying now for 

over 10 years, I think needs to do further investigation in the sense 

that I think the Bureau is limiting the potential benefits of this important reservoir. Because it is not just the water supply, but the 

ability to move water north and south that Temperance Flat affords. 

There are other benefits to this project that I don’t think have 

been fully examined. I urge the Bureau to do a better job in looking 

at them. 

But let’s talk about an assessment of needs. Clearly, we know 

that if we are going to maintain our agriculture economy, be able 

to provide more water for our cities, and deal with the other needs 

11 

that are critical in California and in the West, we have to make 

an assessment of how much additional acre-feet of water do we 

need in California over the next 30 years. And then what is the 

most cost-effective way to get there? 

If we used common sense in that fashion, I think we would be 

better. Let’s be realistic. Some projects are—notwithstanding the 

cost factors, have more political opposition than others. I supported 

Diamond Lake that was mentioned in Southern California that has 

been constructed and built. I supported Los Vaqueros that has been 

built in Contra Costa County. Those are all good surface storage 

projects. Auburn Dam, that the Chair of the Committee supports, 

has a lot of opposition. There are reasons why some projects can 

deal with the permitting and the regulatory process easier than 

others. 

However, the permitting and regulatory system is burdensome. 

We ought to look at ways in which we can do a better job. Frankly, 

people who don’t want a project for the sake of not wanting a 

project have lots of opportunities to hold up a project. And clearly, 

I hope this Committee will look at all of the aspects and factors as 

we look at surface storage supply being a part of our long-term solutions to providing water for not only California, but for the West. 

Clearly, we need to make the same kind of investments that our 

parents and our grandparents made in the 20th century. And I 

think that is the challenge we face today. 

I look forward to listening to the witnesses’ testimony. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Tipton of Colorado. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to particularly thank you for convening this important hearing today in 

terms of something that, for the West, is of critical importance 

since it is the lifeblood of our communities, and that is our ability 

to be able to store water. 

And I would like to be able to submit for the record a letter that 

I received from the Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District in 

Cedar Ridge, Colorado, that actually speaks to some of the issues 

that the Ranking Member had talked about, in terms of being able 

to work with existing structures. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Tipton follows:] 

12 


72805.001.eps

GRAND MESA WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 

P.O. BOX 129 

CEDAREDGE, CO 81413 

Congressman Scott Tipton 

2 I 8 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

February 6, 2012 

Re: Congressional Hearing on Western Water Storage 

Dear Congressman Tipton, 

The Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District (District) would like to have the foIlowing 

experience and issues logged into the public record at the hearing February 7, 2012 entitled 

"Water for Our Future and Job Creation: Examining Regulatory and Bureaucratic Barriers to 

New Surface Storage Infrastructure." The District serves an area encompassing the Grand Mesa 

and Surface Creek Valley, Delta County, Colorado. As a taxpayer funded water conservancy 

district, it is mandated to monitor and preserve the water sources and tributaries supplying this 

precious lifeblood to our diverse area. The interests currently served are municipal, agriculture, 

recreation and recently several inquiries from the energy field (hydroelectric and fossil fuel 

energy). In the faIl of2008, the District board of directors voted to embark on a plan to 

rehabilitate breached reservoirs on the Grand Mesa National Forest within its jurisdictional 

boundaries. As of this date, the District has completed approximately 35% of the Peak Reservoir 

project and 5% of the Blanche Park Reservoir Project. Note, due to weather conditions, site 

work is limited to the months of July through October. 

The District has encountered a laundry list of regulations and studies that has taken several years 

to wade through. The agencies involved are the US Forest Service and The Army Corps of 

Engineers. When the first project, the Peak Reservoir was started, the US Forest Service gave us 

an outline of the studies required to be completed and told us that they could not address any of 

these studies until maybe the next year. Ifwe were interested in seeing our project move 

forward, the District should consider hiring a private firm qualified and approved by the Forest 

Service to complete the work. There were a couple of the studies that the Forest Service, 

personnel were required to complete. The District contracted with an approved firm to complete 

the work which was done summer of201O. The District was then biIIed by the Forest Service 

for the work despite that fact we hired private contractors thus double payments. With the Army 

Corps, they do not do anything on the ground. They require the applicant to hire qualified 

services to address the list of concerns the Corps has which is always subject to change. The 

District was able to take aggressive action with a company that had experience working on the 

issues at hand. To complete this leg of our project took until spring of 20 I I. It was determined 

that there had to be mitigation due to the wetland plants along a tiny stream that ran through this 

emp'ty structure. With all the permits finaIly in hand, the spring of 20 I I, financing in place, 

contractor hired, work was set to begin July of2012. Remaining was a timber cruse involving 
13 

Mr. TIPTON. I would like to note in particular on this letter that 

they do point out that it has been bureaucratic interference out of 

Washington, D.C. that is driving up costs, slowing up projects with 

a limited amount of time to be able to actually rehabilitate some 

of these reservoirs. 

And in this one particular case, we are putting at risk better 

than 3,800 acre-feet of water storage, and it is being lost mainly 

due to the cost of repairs being driven by the bureaucracy that simply make no sense. So I thank you for submission of that. 

Mr. Chairman, water storage is the precursor for multiple-use 

water management in arid regions such as the Third Congressional 

District of Colorado that I represent. Achieving improved water 

storage meeting growing populations is met not only by best manVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

72805.002.eps
14 

agement practices, but also by the development of new water infrastructure. 

Prudent water storage can help aid agriculture, residential use, 

hydropower production, and environmental protection. The natural 

cycle of rivers in the West is one of boom and bust, surplus and 

drought. But with proper water storage, economic cycles do not 

have to be boom and bust. Recreational opportunities can be reliably provided, and water can be allocated where it is best needed 

to meet environmental species protection goals, and support our 

farm and ranch communities. 

As such, there is no need to see water storage as a partisan 

issue, or one that divides the interests of water users, but as the 

means by which the greatest good for the greatest number of water 

users can be met. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing will be a productive step in 

highlighting some of the shortcomings of the existing water storage 

regulatory framework, and how it can be streamlined to better support jobs and communities that depend on the availability of water. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Scott Tipton, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening today’s hearing, and thanks to the panelists for being with us today to examine this very important issue. Water storage is 

the precursor for multiple use water management in arid regions such as the Third 

Congressional District of Colorado. Achieving improved water storage to meet growing populations is met not only by best management practices but also by the development of new water infrastructure. Prudent water storage can help aid agriculture, 

residential use, recreation, hydropower production, and environmental protection. 

The natural cycle of rivers in the West is one of boom and bust, surplus and 

drought. But with proper water storage, economic cycles don’t have to be boom and 

bust, recreational opportunities can be reliably provided, water can be allocated 

where and when it is needed to meet environmental and species protection goals, 

and we can support our farm and ranch communities. As such, there is no need to 

see water storage as a partisan issue, or one that divides the interests of water 

users, but as the means by which the greatest good for the greatest number of water 

users can be met. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing will be a productive step in highlighting some 

of the shortcomings of the existing water storage regulatory framework, and how 

it can be streamlined to better support jobs and communities that depend on the 

availability of water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would like to hear from the witnesses, so I will 

forgo my opportunity. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening 

today’s hearing and providing me the opportunity to make a few 

remarks. While I would prefer the friendly confines of rural Arizona, I am glad to be back here in Washington, D.C. and building 

on our successes in this Committee. 

The Colorado River is a fundamental component of our regional 

economy. The over 20-plus major dams built on the Colorado serve 

multiple purposes such as maintaining a year-round steady flow of 

15 

water and a stable water supply; producing an abundance of clean, 

renewable hydropower production; providing recreational opportunities; and facilitating many environmental protections. 

Hydropower facilities like the Hoover Dam, the Parker Dam, and 

the Glen Canyon Dam are vital power resources for consumers in 

the Western states, keeping our electrical bills low and the economy growing. 

The Central Arizona Project delivers water to 80 percent of my state’s population. The $10.3 billion agricultural industry in my 

state would not exist without the irrigation of over 800,000 acres 

of agricultural land via our state’s water infrastructure. Additionally, recreation and tourism industry related to the river supports 

nearly 800,000 jobs in the seven Colorado River states, including 

82,000 jobs in Arizona. In other words—this infrastructure is our 

lifeblood and we need more of it throughout the West. 

Given the overwhelming benefits, one would think that the Federal Government would be focused on maintaining our current infrastructure and expediting the development of new surface storage. Instead, the Obama Administration is taking actions that compromises existing infrastructure and is standing in the way of development. 

For example, the Glen Canyon Dam, located in Northern Arizona, lost a third of its hydropower generation—over 400 

megawatts, or enough power for almost half a million homes—due 

to an environmental experiment. This experiment had an average 

economic cost of nearly $50 million per year, totaling more than 

$435 million for the 9-year study period. The cost of replacing that 

power the dam could have produced is borne by the customer, not 

my constituents. 

Last summer, this Committee held an oversight hearing on the 

potential job loss and economic impacts of proposed EPA mandates 

on the Navajo Generating Station. Beyond the thousands of goodpaying tribal jobs, the Navajo Generating Station is critical to Arizona’s water supply because it provides 95 percent of the power for 

the Central Arizona Project, that infrastructure that delivers more 

than 500 billion gallons of Colorado River water to 80 percent of 

the state’s population. 

By the Obama Administration’s own report released last month, 

its mandates on the NGS would increase water rates for millions 

of Arizonans, ranging from 16 percent increased rates for agricultural users and Indian tribes to a 7 percent increase for municipal 

and industrial users. These estimates are all based on the assumption that the mandates will not force the plant to shut down, which 

is contrary to testimony heard directly from the plant owners in 

the House Natural Resources Committee. 

All these devastating economic impacts would be imposed on our 

weak economy for an uncertain environmental impact, per the Administration’s own report. It is clear the Administration should 

abandon these nonsensical regulatory mandates and focus on policies that will stimulate our economy, not further damage it. The 

Federal Government needs to get back to working with people, not 

working against them. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. These hardworking Americans, the people on the ground dealing with the regVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

ulations and the bureaucrats that prevent them from doing their 

jobs to the best of their capabilities. And they have an important 

story to tell. 

I am committed to pushing policies that reduce the planning 

time, the regulatory permitting costs associated with the development of new Federal and non-Federal dams and reservoirs, and 

fighting unnecessary regulatory actions that compromise existing 

infrastructure. These efforts will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign 

energy production, ensuring a safe and stable water supply, and facilitating badly needed local job growth in communities throughout 

the West. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gosar follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Arizona 

First, I would like to thank Chairman McClintock for convening today’s hearing 

and for providing me the opportunity to make a few remarks. While I much prefer 

the friendly confines of rural Arizona, it is good to be back here at the Subcommittee 

on Water and Power in 2012. I look forward to building on our subcommittee’s successes from last year. 

The Colorado River is a fundamental component of our regional economy. The 

over twenty-plus major dams built on the Colorado River serve multiple purposes 

such as maintaining a year round steady flows of water and a stable water supply; 

producing an abundance of clean, renewable hydropower production; providing recreational opportunities; and facilitating many environmental protections. 

Hydropower facilities like the Hoover Dam, Parker Dam, and Glen Canyon Dam 

are vital power resources for consumers in the Western states—keeping our electrical bills low and the economy growing. The Central Arizona Project delivers water 

to 80 percent of my state’s population. The $10.3 billion agricultural industry in my 

state would not exist without the irrigation of over 800,000 acres of agriculture land 

via our state’s water infrastructure. Additionally, recreation and tourism industry 

related to the river supports nearly 800,000 jobs in the seven Colorado River states, 

including 82,000 jobs in Arizona. In other words—this infrastructure is our lifeblood 

and we need more of it throughout the West. 

Given the overwhelming benefits, one would think that the federal government 

would be focused on maintaining our current infrastructure and expediting the development of new surface storage. Instead, the Obama Administration is taking actions that compromises existing infrastructure and is standing in the way of development. 

For example, the Glen Canyon Dam, located in Northern Arizona lost a third of 

its hydropower generation—over 400 megawatts or enough to power almost half a 

million homes—due to an environmental experiment. This experiment had an average economic cost of nearly $50 million per year, totaling more than $435 million 

for the nine-year study period. The cost of replacing that power the dam could have 

produced is borne by the customer, my constituents. 

Last summer, this committee held an oversight hearing on the potential job loss 

and economic impacts of proposed EPA mandates on the Navajo Generating Station. 

Beyond the thousands of good paying tribal jobs, the NGS is critical to Arizona’s 

water supply because it provides 95% of the power for the Central Arizona Project 

(CAP)—the infrastructure that deliver more than 500 billion gallons of Colorado 

River water to 80% of the state’s population. 

By the Obama Administration’s own report released last month, its mandates on 

the NGS would increase water rates for millions of Arizonans, ranging from a 16 

percent rate increase for agricultural users and Indian tribes to a 7 percent increase 

for municipal and industrial users. These estimates are all based off on the assumption that the mandates will not force the plant to shutdown, which is directly contrary to testimony heard directly from the plant owners in the House Natural Resources Committee. All these devastating economic impacts would be imposed on 

our weak economy for an uncertain environmental impact, per the Administration’s 

own report. 

It is clear the Administration should abandon these nonsensical regulatory mandates and focus on policies that will stimulate our economy, not further damage it. 

17 

The federal government needs to get back to working with the people, not against 

the people. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. These hardworking Americans— 

the people on the ground, dealing with the regulations and bureaucrats that prevent 

them from doing their jobs to the best of their capabilities—have an important story 

to tell. 

I am committed to pushing policies that reduce the planning time and regulatory 

permitting costs associated with the development of new federal and non-federal 

dams and reservoirs and fighting unnecessary regulatory actions that compromises 

existing infrastructure. These efforts will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy 

production, ensuring a safe and stable water supply, and facilitating badly needed 

local job growth in communities throughout the West. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The Subcommittee welcomes Mr. Gardner of Colorado, and is recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CORY GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to join 

the Committee in this important hearing, and thank Ranking 

Member Napolitano as well for the opportunity to be here. 

I represent Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District, which is 

just the opposite end of the state from my colleague, Mr. Tipton, 

from Western Colorado. It is a district that was once represented 

by Wayne Aspinall, who served as Chairman of the House Insular 

Affairs Committee for a number of years, and whose passion it was 

to add additional water storage to Colorado and to the West. In 

fact, many of the projects that we utilize today to their full extent 

were created by this Congress and Wayne Aspinall, the U.S. Congress and Wayne Aspinall. And the work that we are continuing 

to rely on today is work that happened several generations ago 

under the leadership of people like Wayne Aspinall. 

By 2050, my home state of Colorado will need an additional one 

million acre-feet of water to meet all of our agricultural and industrial municipal demands. Conservation alone cannot meet these demands. We have an obligation to prepare this country’s future generations by storing more water. This hearing is critical to understanding the Federal barriers that inhibit local communities and 

states from developing new dams, reservoirs, and storage systems. 

If you walk into the capital at Colorado, right in the middle of 

the rotunda there is a poem written on the wall. And to paraphrase 

the beginning of the poem, it says something to the effect of, ‘‘Here 

is a land where history is written in water.’’ And that is so true 

of all of our western states. If we are going to continue to thrive 

as a western economy, though, whether it is business or agriculture, every industry depends on an ample water supply. And if 

our economy is going to expand and create additional jobs, then we 

are going to need more water. 

The Fourth Congressional District of Colorado is 11th highest 

producing agricultural district in the U.S. Congress. Farmers and 

ranchers know the importance of water. Lack of supply has caused 

thousands of wells to be shut down, hundreds of thousands of acres 

to be dried up, and water to become increasingly more expensive. 

Many of the projects that have been on the books over the past sevVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

eral years could have avoided, if they had been built, some of the 

shutdowns that Colorado has experienced over the past several 

years. 

One project in particular that I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee is the Northern Integrated Supply Project, 

or NISP. 

NISP would construct a water storage reservoir off stream of the 

Poudre River in Colorado. This proposed project would ensure the 

river flows year round by diverting water to a reservoir during periods of high flow, and sending water back to the river during periods of low flow. The project is popular with the majority of those 

in Northern Colorado and Northeastern Colorado, but it is still 

stuck in the permitting process, the Federal bureaucracy. It has received a barrage of attacks from outside interests who think that 

it would harm agriculture. And yet, every single group in agriculture in Colorado supports the project. 

The opportunity we have with conservation cannot be understated. Conservation is an important part of our water needs. But 

it cannot complete the picture. We also need and will require additional water storage. 

I believe there is a three-pronged solution to our water needs in 

the West: storage, conservation, and partnership, that partnership 

that can exist between the Federal Government and the state and 

local governments. But that partnership should never be driven by 

the Federal Government, but instead driven by local water users 

and local solutions. But conservation cannot take the place—cannot 

replace—the need for additional water storage. 

And so I thank the Chairman for this hearing today. I thank the 

witnesses for being here today, and certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Cory Gardner, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chairman McClintock, Ranking 

Member Napolitano, and my other colleagues on this committee for allowing me the 

opportunity to participate in this hearing. 

The issue before this committee today presents many challenges to all members 

of Congress and especially members from the west. Water is arguably our most valuable resource. By 2050, my home state of Colorado will need an additional 1 million acre-feet of water to meet all of our agricultural and municipal demands. Conservation alone cannot meet these demands. We have an obligation to prepare this 

country’s future generations by storing water. This hearing is critical to understanding the federal barriers that inhibit local communities and states from developing new dams, reservoirs and storage systems. 

Water is an economic driver. In order to attract more growth to the western 

United States—either in business or agriculture—every industry depends upon an 

ample water supply. If our economy is going to expand and create jobs, it is going 

to need more water. As we work to attract more jobs to the West, the people who 

work those jobs are going to need water. If agriculture is to remain vibrant, it too 

must have water. 

My congressional district is the 11th highest producing agricultural district in the 

United States. Farmers and ranchers know the importance of water. Lack of supply 

has caused sales and leases to become increasingly more expensive. The additional 

water storage that Colorado requires can only be realized by rethinking the way the 

Federal government works. Whether through adverse permitting requirements, the 

NEPA process, ESA restrictions or costly litigation—the federal government keeps 

pushing the problem down the road and inhibiting our states from doing what they 

need to do. If we do not act fast, many farms will suffer from agricultural dry-up 

19 

costing jobs and ruining our communities. Throughout the West there are periods 

of dismal precipitation and prolonged drought. New water storage infrastructure can 

alleviate the burden placed on agriculture during these periods. 

One project in particular I would like to bring to the attention of the committee 

is the Northern Integrated Supply Project or NISP. NISP would construct a water 

storage reservoir off stream of the Poudre River in Colorado. This proposed project 

would ensure the river flows year round by diverting water to a reservoir during 

periods of high flow and sending water back to the river during periods of low flow. 

The project is popular with the people of the Front Range of Colorado. Yet, NISP 

is still stuck in the permitting process at the Army Corp of Engineers and continues 

to be delayed because of the regulatory barriers that water projects go through. Not 

to mention, NISP has received a barrage of attacks from outside interest groups. 

One of the most recent attacks was the rumor that it would hurt agriculture in 

Northern Colorado, yet every major agricultural organization in the state supports 

NISP moving forward. This hearing today will shed light on the misinformation that 

is circulating regarding water storage projects. Misinformation often leads to costly 

delays that simultaneously hurt our economic growth and deprive our people of the 

water they so desperately need. 

There is truly enough water for everyone and we can meet both our agriculture 

and municipal usages. I am tired of seeing farmers sell their water rights because 

of the scarcity in our water supply. We need to rethink the Federal government’s 

role in water storage and redefine the missions of the various agencies from the 

Army Corp of Engineers, to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau 

of Reclamation. If the state of Colorado was to build every water storage project on 

the books today, the state would still fall short our of expected future water needs. 

This needs to change. I am ready to get to work on this issue. I thank the committee 

for allowing me to participate, and I thank the witnesses for being here. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you very much. If there are no 

other opening statements, thank the witnesses for their patience, 

and we will now proceed with their testimony. 

That testimony in writing will be incorporated in full in the hearing record, so I would ask that the witnesses keep their oral statements to five minutes, as outlined in the invitation letter pursuant 

to our rules. 

We use timing lights here, as you may have noticed. When you 

begin to speak, you will have five minutes. It will be showing a 

green light. And, just like driving, when you get down to that yellow light, speak very, very fast, and at—when the red light hits we 

will take your picture and send you a ticket. 

I will now recognize Pat O’Toole, President of the Family Farm 

Alliance from Savery, Wyoming to testify. 

STATEMENT OF PAT O’TOOLE, PRESIDENT, 

FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE, SAVERY, WYOMING 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Napolitano. Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

And I have to tell you that this is such a great opportunity for all 

of us to look at one of the most crucial issues that there is, not only 

in the West, but for our country. 

We have submitted—the Family Farm Alliance, we represent 

farmers and ranchers in the 17 Western states. And our reputation 

is being problem solvers. We have listed a lot of what we think are 

solutions to this issue. But if you would allow me to just talk personally about some of my experience, our family ranches on the 

Colorado-Wyoming line. The fellow that—the great-grandfather 

that started the ranch in 1881 was right on the state line. And so 

I graze cattle and sheep in Mr. Tipton’s district and feed lambs in 

20 

Mr. Gardner’s district. But I am a Wyoming resident, and I spent 

some years in the Wyoming Legislature. 

Our community had two—still has two—authorized projects that 

were on the—what was called the Carter Hit List in 1972, or in 

the early 1970s, and those projects were never built. The State of 

Wyoming and our community worked very hard to build storage, 

and we have so far built 25 percent of that original 100,000 acrefeet. It saved us during the end of the last drought cycle, later 

water for irrigators. But we also created 25 miles of fishery. 

And I think that the testimony that you all have made about the 

multiplicity of benefits for water is exactly where we need to go. 

And I don’t—really, water is a non-partisan issue that we have to 

figure out, the great challenge that we have in our generation. 

I have been asked to participate in several processes on policy. 

One is called AGree. It is an eight-year project on how are we going 

to deal with food policy issues. And it has been chilling to have the 

best scientists and the best analysts tell us that we have to 

produce at least 70 percent more food in the next 40 years for a 

growing world and national population. It is the economic engine 

of our country. 

I know we all remember the debate about could we allow our 

manufacturing to go overseas. We allowed that to happen. If we 

don’t gear up on infrastructure and a long-term vision, we can 

allow our agriculture to go the same way. And I think it is so crucial that committees like this, with all of the incredible expertise 

that you all represent take advantage of the opportunity to look at 

multi-use facilities that are strategic all over the West. Those of us 

in rural communities know they are there. 

And I have spent an awful lot of time working with our community on permitting issues. Our—in our testimony we talk about the 

19-year permitting of the 25 percent of those authorized projects. 

It was a devastating process. And I would tell you, from a solutionbased and experience base, we have to get all of the Federal permitters and all the state permitters in rooms together and solve 

these problems one by one and go forward, because what happens 

in the process is you have a round table of Federal and state agencies that permit individually without any kind of unification. 

In Wyoming, there was a visionary atmosphere 30 years ago 

where we came up with the philosophy of using non-renewables to 

fund renewables. That meant that oil, gas, coal, uranium, all the 

things that are produced in the great bounty of Wyoming funds renewables, which is water, wildlife—if you go to a Wyoming high 

school and graduate, you get a free ride to the University of Wyoming, because of those dollars being put into renewables. 

Water—we have our funding mechanisms, and yet we found ourselves—and still find ourselves—in the same situation, where we 

cannot move forward as quickly as possible. And those are state 

dollars. You know, they are used for years and years and years of 

permitting. I myself have sat in some of those meetings, and it was 

so frustrating, because it was obviously an intent to be an impediment. 

In Colorado, for example—and those of you that are from Colorado know that John Stulp, who was Commissioner of Agriculture, 

has spoken very articulately about the 500,000 to 700,000 acre-feet 

21 

of ag water that could go from ag to other uses in Colorado. That 

story is all over the West. And I would just tell you that when we 

made these decisions—and the Chairman referred to the Two 

Forks Decision—that meant that agriculture was the reservoir for 

growth for Denver. And that is what has happened, and that is 

what will continue to happen, unless we have the courage to go forward. 

I am here because my kids are working today. You know, I represent real people in a real situation that know about water storage and its benefits. And I applaud you all for having this very 

bold hearing. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Toole follows:] 

Statement of Patrick O’Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to examine regulatory and 

bureaucratic challenges that delay or halt the development of new water supply enhancement projects in the Western United States. My name is Patrick O’Toole, and 

I serve as the president of the Family Farm Alliance. The Alliance advocates for 

family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in seventeen 

Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission—To ensure the availability 

of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers. 

Water users represented by the Family Farm Alliance use a combination of surface and groundwater supplies, managed through a variety of local, state, and federal arrangements. For the most part, however, our members receive their primary 

irrigation water supplies from the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). In essence, 

we are Reclamation’s customers. Western family farms and ranches of the semi-arid 

and arid West– as well as the communities that they are intertwined with—owe 

their existence, in large part, to the certainty provided by water stored and delivered by Reclamation projects. 

My family operates a cattle, sheep and hay ranch in the Little Snake River Valley 

on the Wyoming-Colorado border. I am a former member of Wyoming’s House of 

Representatives and I served on the federal government’s Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission in the late 1990’s. I currently serve on the Advisory 

Committee for AGree, a new initiative that brings together a diverse group of interests to transform U.S. food and agriculture policy so that we can meet the challenges of the future. I also served over the past two years on a Blue Ribbon Panel 

intended to provide leadership for a project to support the development of the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Program and Policy Statement as a 

part of the process mandated by the Resource Conservation Act (RCA). The topic 

of this oversight hearing is not only tremendously important to the Family Farm 

Alliance, it also is immediately relevant to me and other Wyoming water users, and 

to farmers, ranchers and rural communities all over the West. I would like to start 

my testimony with an overview of the big-picture challenges Western farmers and 

ranchers face as they strive to feed our country and the appetite of a rapidly expanding world population. I will explain why it is preferable to develop new water 

infrastructure to protect our diminishing farm population over policies that encourage competing demands to transfer water away from agriculture. Certainty in Western Water policy is essential to the farmers and ranchers I represent, and that is 

why a suite of conservation, water transfers and other demand reduction mechanisms must be balanced with proactive and responsible development of new water 

infrastructure. This testimony will acknowledge the environmental impacts that can 

accompany new storage projects, but also point out that typical Westerners are 

strongly supportive of new projects, especially if those projects can minimize moving 

water away from farmers and ranchers. And finally, I will conclude with a discussion that suggests the proper role for the federal government to play– particularly 

the Bureau of Reclamation—when it comes to participating in new storage projects 

in these cash-strapped times. 

Western Family Farmers and Ranchers Support Water Supply 

Enhancement Projects 

Family Farm Alliance members rely on traditional water and power infrastructure to deliver irrigation supplies. Our membership has been advocating for new 

22 

storage for over twenty years, and we have provided specific recommendations to 

Congress and the White House on how to streamline restrictive federal regulations 

to make these projects happen. Water conservation and water transfers are important tools for improving management of increasingly scarce water resources. However, our members believe these demand-management actions must be balanced 

with supply enhancement measures that provide the proper mix of solutions for the 

varying specific circumstances in the West. 

Supply enhancement should include rehabilitation of existing facilities and construction of new infrastructure. Rehabilitation measures should focus on maximizing 

the conservation effort through increased delivery efficiencies, construction of re-regulation reservoirs to minimize operational waste, and construction of new dams and 

reservoirs in watersheds with inadequate storage capacity to increase beneficial use 

and provide operational flexibility. Additional groundwater supplies should also be 

developed, but in a manner where groundwater use falls within the safe yield or 

recharge parameters of the aquifer. Conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies should be encouraged. 

The Board of Directors of the Family Farm Alliance in 2005 launched an aggressive and forward looking project that pulled together a master data base of potential 

water supply enhancement projects from throughout the West. Our goal was to 

gather together ideas from around the West and put them into one master data 

base. The types of projects contained in the resulting Western Water Supply Enhancement Study database are not imposing dams like China’s Three Gorges 

project. Instead, they are supply enhancement projects that range from canal lining 

and piping, to reconstruction of existing dams, to integrated resource plans. There 

are also some very feasible new surface storage projects. The benefits from these 

projects include providing certainty for rural family farms and ranches, additional 

flows and habitat for fish, and cleaner water and energy. 

Along with basic information included on a CD–ROM, the database that was generated from the compilation of the survey has a Global Information System (GIS) 

element and includes pictures, maps and a description of up to 500 words for each 

project or proposal. GIS format technology is embedded that permits viewers to see 

a map of 17 Western states and then ‘‘drill down’’ to see map details of a project 

area. 

The Importance of Protecting and Enhancing Reliable Agricultural Water 

Supplies 

Agriculture holds the most senior water rights in the West and is considered a 

likely source of water to meet growing municipal and environmental demands. Unfortunately, severing water from agricultural land makes the land less productive. 

Period. Policy makers should be wary of putting additional, focused emphasis on agricultural water transfers, particularly in the context of growing domestic and global 

food security and scarcity concerns. 

Right now, we are in danger of losing a generation of farmers. Nationally, the median age of active farmers in America has never been higher, with the percentage 

of farmers under 50-years-old continuing to plummet. More than half of today’s 

farmers are aged between 45 and 64, and only 6 percent of our farmers are younger 

than 35. 

Further, the number of farms is declining throughout the West. USDA attributes 

the decline in the number of farms and land in farms to a continuing consolidation 

in farming operations and diversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. 

Meanwhile, Americans are paying a substantially lower amount of their disposable income on food. According to the World Bank, families in 28 other high-income 

countries pay 10.2 percent of their disposable income on food compared to 6.2 percent for families living in the United States. For the average American that’s a difference of $3,820 per year and represents real dollars that are available to purchase 

consumer goods other than food. A 2011 report by Cardno-ENTRIX examined the 

relative affordability of food in the U.S. as compared to 28 other high-income countries. That report found, on a percentage basis, other high-income countries spend 

about 64 percent more in disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages 

compared to the U.S. 

At a time when average Americans are feeling the pinch in their pocket books, 

the foundation of our country’s ability to provide safe and affordable food and fiber 

is at risk. Ironically, it is because Western irrigated agriculture has been so adaptive and successful at providing plentiful, safe and affordable food that it is now jeopardized—nobody believes there can be a problem. The last Americans to experience 

food shortages are members of the Greatest Generation and their parents. For the 

most part, they have left us, taking with them the memories of empty supermarket 

shelves. When the issue has never been personalized, it’s easy to be complacent. 

23 

The U.S. needs a stable domestic food supply, just as it needs a stable energy supply. The post 9/11 world of terrorist threats makes the stability of domestic food 

supply even more pressing. Outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Tommy Thompson put it bluntly when he said, ‘‘I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.’’ Further, Thompson said he worries ‘‘every single night’’ about threats to the American food supply. 

This isn’t just a matter of domestic security; it’s also a global concern. Last year, 

the Global Harvest Initiative (GHI) released its Global Agricultural Productivity 

(GAP) Report, which measures ongoing progress in achieving the goal of sustainably 

doubling agricultural output by 2050. For the first time, the GAP Report quantifies 

the difference between the current rate of agricultural productivity growth and the 

pace required to meet future world food needs. The report predicts that doubling agricultural output by 2050 requires increasing the rate of productivity growth to at 

least 1.75 percent annually from the current 1.4 percent growth rate, a 25 percent 

annual increase. 

When water tied to domestic agricultural lands is transferred elsewhere, those 

lands will no longer be as productive. Policy makers need to understand how this 

limits our ability to feed the world. 

The Argument for Emphasizing New Infrastructure, Not More Water 

Transfers 

We often see bold general statements of water transfer proponents about the potential for agricultural water use efficiency to free up water that can be used for 

in-stream flows. However, those statements are usually followed up by a list of the 

factors that make it a difficult proposition. Those include re-use deficiencies when 

water is removed upstream in the system, water rights that protect water users 

from water being taken away if they conserve water, and transactions that move 

water between presumably willing buyers and willing sellers, but have the effect of 

taking land out of production. All of those issues are dealt with directly in a major 

report released last year by the Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT) at Fresno 

State. The report, ‘‘Agricultural Water Use in California: A 2011 Update’’, refutes 

some long-standing beliefs about agricultural water usage and confirms others. The 

full report is available at http://www.californiawater.org. The CIT report and others 

have reached a similar conclusion: the only large potential for moving water from 

agriculture to other uses will come from fallowing large swaths of farmland. 

There is growing recognition that states and local governments must consider the 

impacts of continued growth that relies on water transfers from agriculture and 

rural areas and to identify feasible alternatives to those transfers. For example, a 

2006 report released by the Western States Governors Association (WGA) states 

‘‘there is understandable support for the notion of allowing markets to operate to 

facilitate transfers from agricultural to municipal and urban use as a means to accommodate the needs of a growing population. While such transfers have much to 

commend them, third party impacts should be taken into account, including adverse 

effects on rural communities and environmental values. Alternatives that could reasonably avoid such adverse impacts should be identified.’’ 

The Family Farm Alliance is working with Western Governors Association and 

the Western States Water Council to develop a report on successful and unsuccessful agricultural-to-urban water transfers to determine how transfers can be accomplished in a manner that avoids or at least mitigates damage to agricultural economies and environmental values, while at the same time avoiding infringement on 

private property rights. 

There will be nothing done with water in the West without there being winners 

and losers. Cities may expect to buy water from farms, but that is not a long term 

solution as global food shortages make farming a crucial national need. 

A multitude of unique solutions exist for Western communities wrestling with 

growing urban water use. The Northern Colorado Water Conservation District is 

currently seeking to develop new offstream storage to protect agriculture as urbanization sweeps into Northern’s traditional service area. Farmers in the Klamath Irrigation Project (CALIFORNIA/OREGON) are paid through an environmental water 

bank to temporarily fallow land or pump groundwater in place of using Klamath 

River water. On the other hand, unsuccessful implementation of Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act water transfer provisions in California suggests that water 

markets cannot be legislated. 

If we don’t find a way to restore water supply reliability for irrigated agriculture 

through a combination of new infrastructure, other supply enhancement efforts, and 

demand management—our country’s ability to feed and clothe itself and the world 

will be jeopardized. 

24 

1The DWR report is available at: www.farmwater.org/DWR_Econ_Efficiency.pdf 

Improved conveyance and storage projects provide the best flexibility to manage 

and move water in the West. The retention of existing water supplies and the development of critically needed new supplies are of the utmost importance. Drought and 

population growth have accelerated the arrival of inevitable water shortages. Supplies are already inadequate for the growing demands, but very few plans exist to 

develop supplies to meet increasing needs. At the federal level, we are told that the 

big dam-building era is over. This may indeed be true, but it is also plainly and 

painfully true that there isn’t enough water to meet the needs of agriculture, urban 

growth and the environment. Increased conservation and efficiency can help, but 

they are only part—a small part—of the solution. And buying and bullying water 

away from farmers isn’t the solution either. Meeting the current and future water 

needs of the West will require a thoughtful combination of means, not the least of 

which is the creation of new storage. 

Demand Management vs. Supply Enhancement 

Water conservation (i.e. ‘‘demand management’’) is often seen as the solution to 

water supply issues. In fact, in the past fifteen years, tremendous agricultural conservation efforts have been undertaken throughout the West, from installation of 

high technology drip irrigation systems in California’s Central Valley, to tens of millions of dollars spent on improving on-farm water use efficiency in the Klamath 

Basin. On the other hand, relatively little progress has been made on the ‘‘supply 

management’’ end of things. While development has occurred on conjunctive management and groundwater banking projects—which will be discussed in more detail 

by some of my fellow witnesses—development of new surface storage projects have 

virtually ground to a halt in the past 30 years, especially if any sort of federal nexus 

exists for proposed projects. 

Western farmers and ranchers have long taken a progressive approach to water 

management. Farmers are already investing in upgraded irrigation systems. For example, between 2003 and 2010 San Joaquin Valley farmers invested almost $2.2 billion in upgraded irrigation systems on over 1.8 million acres of farmland. Those investments helped improve water use efficiency and food production and helped fuel 

portions of the rural economy at a time when water supply cuts were increasing unemployment. And, these sorts of efficient farm practices have led to increased economic value and production. A report by the California Department of Water Resources 1 shows that the value of California farm products doubled during the 40- 

year period from 1967 and 2007 while at the same time, applied water decreased 

by 14 percent. Other research by the California Farm Water Coalition showed that 

the volume of farm production between 1967 and 2000 rose approximately 89 percent with only a two percent increase in applied water per acre. These indicators 

support assertions that farmers in general are improving water use efficiency in significant ways over time. 

While conservation is surely a tool that can assist in overcoming water supply 

problems, it cannot be viewed as the single answer to water shortages. For example, 

conserved water cannot always realistically be applied to instream uses, as it will 

more likely be put to beneficial use by the next downstream appropriator or held 

in carryover storage for the following irrigation season. Also, in urban areas, further 

tightening of water conservation measures, in essence, ‘‘hardens’’ those urban demands. Some degree of flexibility must be embedded in urban water conservation 

programs to allow these areas to employ more restrictive water conservation measures during drought periods. Without having the ability to save water during 

drought periods via drought conservation measures, the resulting hardened demand 

will force urban water managers to more quickly look to secure water from other 

areas; namely, agriculture and the environment. So, clearly, mandated or ‘‘one size 

fits all’’ conservation programs are doomed to failure in light of the drastically different circumstances of water users across the West. 

Farmers and ranchers will continue to do all they can to save water. However, 

water saving cannot be expanded indefinitely without reducing acreage in production. At some point, the growing water demands of the West—coupled with the omnipresent possibility of drought—must be met. The members of the Subcommittee 

must understand that in the West, the water needed to meet these demands will 

either come from developing new water supplies. . ..or it will be taken from agriculture. 

Environmental Impacts of Storage Projects 

Obviously, there will be environmental concerns associated with any new surface 

water storage projects. However, we believe it is possible to address those issues and 

25 

move forward with storage projects that will ultimately have broad support from a 

number of different stakeholders. Individual surface storage proposals must be evaluated and the associated benefits and risks must be viewed in a net, comprehensive 

manner. While some storage critics focus on perceived negative impacts associated 

with new facility construction (e.g. loss of habitat, disruption of ‘‘natural’’ stream 

flow patterns, and potential evaporative losses), these perceived impacts must also 

be compared to the wide range of multi-purpose benefits that storage projects can 

provide. Also, although water is lost to evaporation in surface reservoirs that serve 

agricultural, environmental and urban uses, there is very little ‘‘wasted water’’ associated with moving and applying irrigation water. Water not directly consumed 

through evapo-transpiration often serves other purposes, such as replenishing 

groundwater, buffering soil salinity and supporting riparian vegetation. 

Properly designed and constructed surface storage projects provide additional 

water management flexibility to better meet downstream urban, industrial and agricultural water needs, improve flood control, generate clean hydropower, provide 

recreation opportunities, and—create additional flows that can benefit downstream 

fish and wildlife species. 

Some people and organizations oppose dams and Reclamation’s proud history of 

dam construction as a matter of dogma. They have no flexibility in their position 

when it comes to surface storage. But experience teaches us that solving complex 

problems requires a great deal of flexibility. It also requires the collective efforts of 

reasonable, well intentioned people who may come at the problem from entirely difference perspectives. Surface storage isn’t the solution in all cases, but dismissing 

it out of hand serves no good purpose by eliminating potential solutions to some vexing water supply issues. 

Creative, successful solutions can be found by motivated, unthreatened parties. 

The holders of water rights approach the Western water supply problem with much 

at risk, and with much to offer in the form of practical experience managing the 

resource on a daily basis. Incentives that create reasons to succeed will do more 

good for the environment in a shorter period of time than actions that rely on 

threats of government intervention. 

Political Support for New Water Projects 

Colorado State University (CSU) in 2009 completed a West-wide (17 states) that 

found—throughout the West—strong citizen support for water going to farmers and 

also strong support for building new water infrastructure. The report provides very 

interesting findings that underscore Western householders support for water storage 

projects and irrigation over environmental and recreational water needs in times of 

shortage. Three focus groups were used to develop a multi-faceted questionnaire. An 

Email invitation to an internet survey yielded 6,250 municipal household respondents in 17 Western states. 

Among Western respondents to the CSU poll, the most popular strategies for 

meeting long-term needs are to build reservoirs and reuse water, whether it is on 

private lawns or public landscapes. The least popular alternative is to buy water 

from farmers. When addressing long-term scarcity, respondents preferred reservoir 

construction and reuse systems over other acquisitions and, in particular, are not 

in favor of water transfers from agriculture. 

This new information flies in the face of arguments made by some environmental 

activist groups and editorial boards of certain Western urban newspapers, who insist that the public shares their view that dams are outdated, monstrous aberrations that should be destroyed. The findings in this report should further convince 

our political leaders to ignore the naysayers and stand up for farming and new 

water supply enhancement projects. 

Appropriate Role of the Federal Government in These Endeavors 

The federal government should adopt a policy of supporting new efforts to enhance water supplies and encouraging state and local interests to take the lead in 

the formulation of those efforts. Local interests have shown enormous creativity in 

designing creative water development projects; my fellow witnesses on this panel 

will provide you the best sense of the range of creativity that can be generated at 

the local level. While onstream storage should not be seen as unacceptable, 

offstream storage, groundwater banking, and countless other forms of water development should be encouraged as a matter of federal policy and law. Local problems 

call for local solutions. 

The existing procedures for developing additional supplies should also be revised 

to make project approval less burdensome. By the time project applicants approach 

federal agencies for authorization to construct multi-million dollar projects, they 

have already invested extensive resources toward analyzing project alternatives to 

26 

determine which project is best suited to their budgetary constraints. However, current procedure dictates that federal agencies formulate another list of project alternatives which the applicant must assess, comparing potential impacts with the preferred alternative. These alternatives often conflict with state law. Opportunities 

should be explored to expedite this process and reduce the costs to the project applicant. 

The example of the permitting history of the Little Snake River Irrigation Water 

Supply Project, High Savery Dam and Reservoir—attached to this testimony—best 

illustrates this matter. 

In addition, the current mitigation procedure for federal agencies should be reviewed to determine the feasibility of clarifying and standardizing mitigation requirements. Currently, requirements for one project become the standard for all 

subsequent projects. Since no two projects are the same, federal agencies tend to 

impose increasingly severe mitigation requirements on new projects. The end result 

is that applicants end up spending tremendous amounts of money for potentially uncertain mitigation. 

The example of the city of Buffalo, Wyoming,—attached to this testimony—illustrates the point. For 8.8 acres of wetlands impacts, the cost of mitigation amounted 

to approximately $1 million. This is in excess of $100,000 per acre. The primary reason for these costs was that the United States Army Corps of Engineers required 

a 5:1 ratio for wetland mitigation. The 5:1 ratio is not a scientifically based figure, 

but rather an arbitrary figure developed by the agency. After 3 years and significant 

expense, the city finally was forced to accept this ratio in order to proceed with the 

project. 

Another possible solution is the creation of mitigation banking. Under such an approach, applicants faced with excessive mitigation costs would be allowed to pay a 

reasonable sum per acre to a regional mitigation bank or set aside mitigation lands 

as a condition to implementation of their project. The federal government should encourage the creation and use of public and private mitigation banks. 

1. The Bureau of Reclamation’s Recent Role Relative to Advancing New Storage 

Projects 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s once active role in building new dams and reservoirs 

has diminished significantly over the last three decades. Construction of large dams, 

in general, has become virtually impossible in recent decades due to new societal 

environmental priorities, and related passage of numerous federal laws that create 

litigious uncertainty and tremendous regulatory obstacles for proponents of new 

dams. 

Shortly after the Alliance’s data base was released (and submitted to the Congressional record in April 2005), the Bureau of Reclamation did submit a report to Congress that identified nearly one thousand potential hydroelectric and water supply 

projects in the Western United States that have been studied, but not constructed. 

The report was required by the Energy Act of 2005. The 2005 Alliance and Reclamation efforts show that, in most areas of the West, water resources are available to 

be developed. Environmentally-safe and cost-effective projects exist. They await the 

vision and leadership needed to move them to implementation. 

2. Why the Bureau of Reclamation and Other Federal Agencies Need to Improve 

Regulations and Streamline Permitting of New Projects 

The Family Farm Alliance believes that without new sources of water, increasing 

urban and environmental demands will deplete existing agricultural supplies and 

seriously threaten the future of Western irrigated agriculture. The often slow and 

cumbersome federal regulatory process is a major obstacle to realization of projects 

and actions that could enhance Western water supplies. Here are just a few reasons 

why Reclamation and other federal agencies (particularly fisheries agencies) need to 

find ways to streamline regulations and permitting requirements: 

• Planning opportunities and purposes for which a project may be permitted 

are restricted, which narrows the planning horizon, and makes it impossible 

to plan for projects with long-term benefits; 

• The alternatives proposed for assessment by the National Environmental Protection Act regulators are frequently inappropriate, unrealistic, difficult-to-implement, and often in conflict with state law. The permitting process stalls, 

and costs increase to the project applicant; 

• Federal regulators take a long time making decisions on projects, and at 

times they seem unable to even make decisions. As a result, projects are postponed and money is wasted as additional studies and analyses are conducted; 

• Applicants end up spending tremendous amounts of money for potentially uncertain mitigation; 

27 

• Rather than doing things concurrently, conflicting agency permit requirements can add time to the project planning and implementation process and 

increases greatly the potential for last-minute surprises that could endanger 

the proposal or require significant additional work. 

We pledge to continue our work with federal agencies and other interested parties 

to build a consensus for improve the regulatory process. 

3. Future Federal Funding of New Water Supply Enhancement Projects 

Even before the advent of the challenging economic times we now live in, we witnessed a progressive cutback in federal water supply funding. We understand that 

those who benefit from new water supply infrastructure should help pay for that 

infrastructure. However, policy makers need to understand that, for the most part, 

new water supplies are not being proposed to meet the expanding needs of agriculture. On the contrary, we are seeing a move in the opposite direction, where agricultural lands are going out of production and being lost to expanding urban development. Water that was originally established for agriculture and the communities 

it supports is now being reallocated to meet new growing urban and environmental 

water demands. The growing number of urban water users in the West and the public interest served through improved environmental water supplies should naturally 

be part of equitable financing schemes. 

Most water supply entities are willing to make investments to meet human and 

environmental needs, but they need to know up front that the federal government 

will honor its part of the bargain. This means that the federal government should 

enter into meaningful contracts that protect the expectations of the non-federal parties, and concepts like the ‘‘No Surprises Rule’’ under the Endangered Species Act 

must be validated and expanded. 

The President and Congress will prioritize whatever federal funds are available 

to meet existing and future needs. As for the rest of the capital, it must come either 

from state and local governments or from the private sector. If the federal government cannot fund the required investments, it should take meaningful steps to provide incentives for non-federal entities to fill the void, and remove barriers to the 

new ways of doing business that will be required. 

Local and state interests have shown enormous creativity in designing creative 

water development projects. For example, my home State of Wyoming has initiated 

its Dam and Reservoir Program, where proposed new dams with storage capacity 

of 2,000 acre-feet or more and proposed expansions of existing dams of 1,000 acrefeet or more qualify for state funding. Wyoming water managers and policy makers 

recognize that dams and reservoirs typically provide opportunities for many potential uses. While water supply is emphasized in the Wyoming program, recreation, 

environmental enhancement, flood control, erosion control and hydropower uses are 

also explored as secondary purposes. 

In this time of tight budgets and huge overseas spending, the federal government 

must adopt a policy of supporting new projects to enhance water supplies while encouraging state and local interests to take the lead in the implementation of those 

projects. 

Conclusion 

Family farmers and ranchers require certain water supplies as a base condition 

of their existence. We cannot continue to wish away the reality that there is not 

enough water to meet our needs in drought years, and 20 years from now, if something is not done, every year will essentially be a drought year. We cannot continue 

long-term hypothetical processes that focus primarily on continued conservation and 

downsizing of Western agriculture. 

We believe that it is possible to meet the needs of cities and the environment in 

a changing climate without sacrificing Western irrigated agriculture. To achieve 

that goal, we must expand the water supply in the West. There must be more water 

stored and available to farms and cities. Maintaining the status quo simply isn’t 

sustainable in the face of unstoppable population growth, diminishing snow pack, 

increased water consumption to support domestic energy, and increased environmental demands. 

Modern, integrated water storage and distribution systems can provide tremendous physical and economic flexibility to address climate transformation and population growth. However, this flexibility is limited by legal, regulatory, or other institutional constraints, which can take longer to address than actually constructing the 

physical infrastructure. 

The Family Farm Alliance wants to work with this Administration, Congress, and 

other interested parties to build a consensus for improving the regulatory process. 

The real reason the Alliance continues to push for improved water storage and conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

veyance infrastructure is not to support continued expansion of agricultural water 

demand (which is NOT happening in most places). Instead, we seek to mitigate for 

the water that has been reallocated away from agriculture towards growing urban, 

power, environmental and recreational demands in recent decades. If we don’t find 

a way to restore water supply reliability for irrigated agriculture through a combination of new infrastructure, other supply enhancement efforts, and demand management—our country’s ability to feed and clothe itself and the world will be jeopardized. 

We need to clearly determine how much new water is needed for new uses, and 

then find ways to support those uses in a sustainable way that doesn’t hurt irrigated agriculture. New infrastructure is one such way; the construction of additional 

water supply infrastructure may allow more efficient management and enable greater cooperation between traditional and non-traditional water users. 

Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic national resource, and the role of the 

federal government in the 21st Century should be to protect and enhance that resource. Federal agencies have a role to play in infrastructure development, but interference with or duplication of state authorities must be minimized. 

Attachment List: 

1. Permitting History of the Little Snake River Irrigation Water Supply Project, 

High Savery Dam and Reservoir 

2. City of Buffalo, Wyoming Case Study 

Attachment 1: Permitting History 

of the Little Snake River Irrigation Water Supply Project 

High Savery Dam and Reservoir 

Introduction 

Permitting is a major step in any project that requires federal agency action; it 

can be the most perplexing and confusing step in project development. Projects requiring federal actions must go through the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) assessment process, which in itself is not a permitting process but is of utmost importance concerning whether required permits will eventually be issued. 

Due to extensive/thorough NEPA screening requirements and alternative evaluations, projects often lose direction and focus during this process. 

NEPA was enacted in 1969 to promote informed decisions and public disclosure 

of federal actions. Through NEPA assessments other laws such as the Endangered 

Species Act, Clean Water Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the National 

Historic Preservation Act come into play. These laws and acts require permits or 

clearances from a number of agencies, and make coordination of the NEPA process 

the driving force for project permitting. This was especially true for the Little Snake 

River Irrigation Supplemental Water Supply Project. 

The following sections discuss major events that occurred during permitting of the 

Little Snake River Irrigation Water Supply Project and present conclusions and lessons learned from this process. The history and conclusions presented are a compilation of information from legislative reports, project studies and personal recollections. 

History 

The Little Snake Irrigation Water Supply Project began as the Sandstone Dam 

Project and now is commonly referred to as the High Savery Dam and Reservoir 

Project. The Sandstone Dam Project began as mitigation for the Cheyenne Stage I, 

II and III projects and to provide additional water storage for industrial development. The Wyoming Legislature authorized the Cheyenne Stage I and II projects 

in 1979 and 1980 and also instructed the Wyoming Water Development Commission 

(WWDC) to look at the feasibility of developing storage in the Little Snake River 

Basin to address in-basin agricultural, recreational and municipal needs. 

Studies were initiated to evaluate dam and reservoir sites in the basin and the 

Sandstone site was selected as the preferred site. In 1984, the legislature authorized 

a project in the Little Snake River Basin to mitigate and alleviate any water supply 

shortages caused by the Cheyenne Stage I and II projects. Sandstone Dam was to 

impound 52,000 acre-feet of water behind a 200-foot high structure. The reservoir 

would have had a 32,000 acre-foot annual yield with 12,000 acre-feet allocated for 

irrigation and 20,000 acre-feet allocated for future industrial development. 

After several years of study, the permitting process for the Sandstone Project was 

initiated in 1986. An application for a Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit (404 

Permit) was filed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which initiated 

the NEPA assessment process. The project was of a scale that an environmental imVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
29 

pact statement (EIS) was necessary; the Corps was the lead agency for the NEPA 

review and for preparation of the EIS. The draft EIS and biological assessment (for 

assessment of impacts to endangered species) were published in January 1988. Six 

action alternatives and the no action alternative were evaluated. The six action alternatives included four reservoirs, a ground water development alternative and a 

water conservation alternative. The preferred alternative, for the state and the 

sponsor, was the Sandstone Dam and Reservoir Project. All of the alternatives were 

sized to allow storage of 12,000 acre-feet of irrigation water and 20,000 acre-feet for 

future industrial development. A supplement to the Draft EIS was published in 

April 1989 to support need for storage of 20,000 acre-feet for future industrial use. 

Work continued on the EIS process during 1989 and 1990. 

On December 14, 1990, the WWDC received notice from the Corps’ Omaha District Office that they were recommending denial of the 404 Permit for the Sandstone 

Project. Their denial was based upon the lack of an acceptable federal ‘‘purpose and 

need’’ for the 20,000 acre-feet of water reserved for industrial purposes. The WWDC 

and then Governor Sullivan disagreed with the decision and requested that the permit be issued. The decision was elevated to the Corps Division Engineer. In 1991, 

the WWDC was notified that the Division Engineer upheld the District Engineer’s 

recommendation that the 404 Permit be denied for the 52,000 acre-foot project. 

However, the Corps noted that it would be prepared to reopen consideration of the 

application if use of the reservoir yield could be clearly defined. 

During 1991, the Little Snake River Basin Planning Study was authorized by the 

WWDC and legislature. This study was completed in October 1992. One task of the 

study was to evaluate potential reservoir sites to determine whether any were capable of meeting the supplemental irrigation water needs in the Little Snake River 

Basin. At the request of the Savery-Little Snake Water Conservancy District (District), a downsized version of the Sandstone Project was included among the alternatives. 

The Commission recommended construction funding for a smaller Sandstone Dam 

and Reservoir project; this downsized version would possess a water storage capacity of 23,000 acre-feet, which would yield 12,000 acre-feet per year of supplemental 

irrigation water. Legislation was approved during the 1993 session to provide 

$30,000,000 to construct the project. The project purpose, as defined by the legislature, was to serve as an agricultural, municipal and domestic water supply; the 

project was to also increase recreational opportunities, provide environmental enhancements, and serve as mitigation water for shortages caused by the Cheyenne 

Stage I, II, and III trans-basin diversion water supply projects. 

Additional studies were conducted in 1993 to determine the suitability of the 

Sandstone site. The report concluded dam construction at the Sandstone site was 

technically feasible. In 1994, the WWDC began the permitting process for construction of a smaller project, including a downsized Sandstone Dam and Reservoir 

project and several other potential alternatives. The downsized Sandstone Dam was 

the preferred alternative. Since the scope of the project had changed, the results of 

the draft EIS published in 1988 could not be used. The WWDC entered into an 

agreement with the Corps and contracted with Burns and McDonnell to complete 

a new third party EIS. 

The Corps advised the WWDC, District and valley residents in January 1995 that 

a 404 Permit could be issued only for the least environmentally damaging alternative. That summer the Corps indicated that the least damaging practicable alternative was a combination of two alternative reservoirs (Dutch Joe and Big Gulch); 

therefore, a 404 Permit would not be issued for the Sandstone Dam alternative. The 

Corps had narrowly defined the purpose and need for the project as supplemental 

late season irrigation water supply. The Corps’ definition conflicted with the Wyoming legislation that authorized funding for the project; the Wyoming Legislature 

stipulated that recreation, environmental enhancement, municipal water supply, 

supplemental irrigation, and mitigation for past and future trans-basin water 

projects were all legitimate purposes for the project. 

In August 1995, the WWDC director and project manager explained to the WWDC 

and Select Water Committee of the Wyoming Legislature reasons why the EIS was 

stalled, which was largely attributable to the lack of support for alternatives other 

than the Sandstone site. The WWDC and the Select Water Committee concluded 

that alternatives to the Sandstone Dam and Reservoir should be considered if there 

was a clear consensus of support for other alternatives. Public meetings were held 

in the Little Snake Valley in August, October and December 1995 for the purposes 

of discussing project alternatives. It was apparent that a majority of those attending 

the meetings preferred the construction of Sandstone Dam, since they believed that 

the Sandstone site would provide more multiple use benefits than the other alternatives. This majority also disagreed with the Corps decision not to include other 

30 

project purposes, which were mandated by the legislature, within the Corps’ purpose 

and need analysis. 

The WWDC supported the position expressed by a majority of the Little Snake 

Valley residents and directed the WWDC staff to further pursue changing the purpose and need section of the EIS to include state legislature’s mandated purposes, 

particularly recreation. The lack of agreement between the state and the Corps, concerning the project’s purpose and need, resulted in further delay of the project. 

In 1996, The WWDC contracted with Burns and McDonnell to complete an analysis of need for additional flat-water recreation in the Baggs, Wyoming area. The 

study concluded that there wasn’t a need for additional flat-water recreation in the 

area. Other studies were commissioned to keep the project moving forward; but 

study results also did not support the Sandstone alternative. The Corps reaffirmed 

their position that the project purpose could only be for supplemental irrigation 

water supply. Further, the Corps indicated verbally and in writing that the project 

should provide 12,000 acre-feet of water on a firm basis 8 out of 10 years. The 

Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District had requested a firm 12,000 

acre-foot yield 10 out of 10 years. 

Adding to other problems, the Sandstone Dam alternative was the most costly 

project (about $48 million). The Dutch Joe alternative was nearly $10 million less 

costly. The High Savery alternative was the least costly at about $30 million. Environmental impacts were greatest at Sandstone but appeared to be significant at the 

Dutch Joe and High Savery sites as well. A meeting to discuss the project, attended 

by representatives of the Corps, other federal agencies, several state agencies, the 

Governor’s office, representatives from the District, other representatives from Carbon County, the WWDC, and the Select Water Committee, was held on November 

19, 1996. The Corps stated that given the available data, the Sandstone site could 

not be permitted because the Dutch Joe site was the least environmentally damaging alternative. They indicated that the High Savery Project might be permitted 

if it could be shown that impacts to big game winter range at Dutch Joe were more 

environmentally damaging than the wetland and stream channel impacts at High 

Savery. A meeting was held in Baggs on December 5, 1996 and the irrigators and 

Little Snake Valley residents supported a motion to change the project name from 

Sandstone to the Little Snake Water Supply Project. Work completed in 1995 and 

1996 resulted in a delay to the project but set the stage for the eventual construction of the High Savery Dam and Reservoir alternative. 

The permitting process was put back on track in 1997 and three alternatives were 

selected that would meet the specified need for the project, which was to supply 

12,000 acre-feet of supplemental irrigation water to the users in the Little Snake 

River Valley 8 out of 10 years. The alternatives studied were a downsized Sandstone 

Dam and Reservoir, Dutch Joe Dam and Reservoir, and High Savery Dam and Reservoir. High Savery became the preferred alternative. The final studies were completed during 1997 and 1998 and the Draft EIS was published in August 1998. The 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report was also released in August 1998. 

Public meetings were held and comments were taken on the draft EIS in the fall 

of 1998. Disagreements between the WWDC, the WGFD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Corps on how best to address the DEIS comments delayed the completion of the Final EIS until October 1999. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

issued the Biological Opinion in July 1999 to satisfy the consultation requirements 

of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. In order that a Record of Decision 

(ROD) could be issued, work began in earnest in 1999 to mitigate the project’s adverse environmental impacts. Numerous meetings were held with the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, WWDC, USFWS, Savery-Little Snake Water Conservancy District and Corps to resolve differences and finalize the plan. 

The Final EIS, completed in October 1999, identified the High Savery Project as 

the preferred alternative. Several comments were received but none were significant. These few comments were eventually addressed in the Corps’ Record of Decision (ROD). However, the project was further delayed because the Corps was concerned about issuing the ROD and 404 Permit before cultural resource preservation 

and management issues were resolved. 

Efforts to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, which protects cultural resources, were also underway at this time. A number of site visits, conference 

calls, and meetings were conducted to discuss cultural resource issues with interested Native American Tribes, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), WWDC and the Corps. There were a variety of tasks undertaken to satisfy 

the requirements of the Tribes and SHPO. Several cultural sites had to be evaluated 

and protection plans developed. One site required excavation and interpretation. 

This work was conducted during 1999 and 2000. A final Programmatic Agreement 

31 

to protect and manage cultural resources on the High Savery Site, which took over 

a year to negotiate, was eventually signed in early December 2000. 

The plan to mitigate the adverse impacts to wetlands, uplands and riparian areas 

proved to be extremely controversial, which further delayed the project. Three drafts 

of the plan were completed and debated by all parties involved. In October 2000 a 

final draft plan was presented to the Corps by WWDC. This plan was finally approved in December 2000 after a meeting with the Corps at their District headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. 

The ROD was issued December 14, 2000, approximately one-year and two months 

after the final EIS was released. The 404 Permit for High Savery Dam and Reservoir was signed December 20, 2000. These steps completed the permitting portion 

of the project and advanced the High Savery Project toward construction. 

Conclusions and Lessons Learned 

It could be concluded from the Little Snake Supplemental Irrigation Supply 

Project (High Savery Project) history that 14 or more years might be required for 

permitting reservoir projects. However, that may not be correct. During the time the 

High Savery Project was being permitted several other reservoir projects within Wyoming were designed, permitted and constructed. Sulfur Creek Reservoir Enlargement near Evanston was initiated in 1984 and constructed in 1986. Design of the 

Twin Lakes Enlargement for the Sheridan water supply was started in 1988, permitting was begun in 1992, and construction started in 1996 and was completed in 

1998. A 404 Permit application was submitted for the Tie Hack Dam and Reservoir 

Project above Buffalo in February 1994, the permit was issued in March 1996 and 

the project was completed in 1997. A 404 Permit application was filed in November 

1996 for the Greybull Valley Dam and Reservoir. The permit was issued in June 

1998 and the project was completed in 2000. 

We often learn more from mistakes than we do from successes; in this regard 

there are a number of lessons that can be gained from the Sandstone/Little Snake 

Supplemental Irrigation Water Supply Project/High Savery Dam and Reservoir permitting process. The determination of purpose and need under federal guidelines restricts planning opportunities and purposes for which a project may be permitted. 

The state’s acceptance of a project that yields less than a firm supply should be 

questioned. This acceptance results in less utility for the state and for the project’s 

beneficiaries. A better approach would be to maximize the basin’s available hydrology or at least meet the firm-yield requirements of the sponsor. If the basin hydrology cannot provide the firm yield, the decision to construct the project should rest 

with the state and sponsor and should not become a reason for permit denial by 

the Corps. Further, the state should encourage its Congressional delegation to sponsor legislation that would allow the state’s legislative and planning process to be 

considered in establishing purpose and need for construction of dam and reservoir 

projects. 

If Congress is unwilling to expand the state’s role in establishing the purpose or 

need for a project, the project sponsor and the state must work within existing 

guidelines to maximize opportunities. Working within either existing or expanded 

federal guidelines would facilitate the NEPA analysis, from which all other permitting processes will tier. The 20,000 acre-feet of water storage for future industrial 

development that couldn’t be definitively described in the early Sandstone Project 

was a permitting problem. There was no specific purpose or need described for the 

20,000 acre-feet of industrial water. Therefore, the Corps felt that justification for 

building a reservoir having this extra capacity and additional adverse environmental impact was unwarranted. However, it is incumbent on the state and potential project sponsors not to lose sight of future demands for water that may only 

be addressed by constructing new dam and reservoir projects. The challenge will be 

to convince regulators, during the permitting process, that the benefits of constructing a proposed future project outweigh the adversities; consequently, there is 

a justifiable ‘‘purpose and need’’ for the project. 

Developing a reasonable range of alternatives is also very important in project 

planning and the NEPA process. Alternatives must meet the need and purpose for 

the project and must be capable of being implemented. It is important to use the 

NEPA process to help determine the most appropriate alternative from the set of 

reasonable alternatives. Although the Sandstone Project started with a set of alternatives the one seriously considered was the Sandstone Dam and Reservoir alternative. When the Corps determined that the Sandstone alternative could not be permitted, the permitting process stalled because other alternatives had not been seriously considered. Even after the project was downsized to match the need, the State, 

District, and valley residents wanted to maintain the Sandstone alternative as the 

preferred alternative. This caused permitting delays. 

32 

The permitting process did not proceed until a reasonable range of alternatives 

was developed. Once a reasonable range of alternatives, including the High Savery 

alternative, was developed, the project moved forward to a conclusion within an acceptable timeframe. In other words, the alternative site and project evaluations undertaken in 1996 put permitting back on track in 1997. The state successfully secured the permit to construct High Savery in December 2000. 

Cooperative efforts are important for moving projects through the NEPA and permitting processes. The WWDC and local sponsors should become cooperating agencies in the NEPA process if possible and if not, should be allowed to serve on the 

project EIS interdisciplinary team. The Corps wasted a great deal of time making 

decisions on the project and at times seemed unable to make decisions. These delays 

not only postponed the project, they resulted in wasted money. Disagreements at 

the state and local level also contributed to delays, and led to additional costly studies and analyses. 

Establishing working relationships with the agencies involved in the NEPA process and permitting is important to keep the project on schedule and to avoid costly 

delays and disagreements. It is impossible to eliminate all problems associated with 

permitting dam and reservoir projects, but good cooperation and communications between agencies and groups, with an understanding of each participant’s expectations, will help in problem resolution. 

Dam and reservoir projects are complex and often controversial, a dedicated local 

sponsor or project proponent and a documented ‘‘purpose and need’’ are minimum 

requirements for success. The primary reason the High Savery Dam was permitted 

and constructed is the persistence and perseverance of the Savery-Little Snake 

Water Conservancy District and the residents of the valley. The sponsor’s and the 

state’s staying power prevailed in the end. 

Attachment 2: City of Buffalo, Wyoming Case Study 

The example of the city of Buffalo illustrates the enormous difficulties and expense associated with obtaining federal regulatory clearance requisite for constructing even small and non-controversial water projects. The mitigation associated 

with this project illustrates the unreasonable approaches being taken by federal 

agencies as a condition of obtaining needed federal permits. Within Wyoming there 

are rarely two projects which have the same or equivalent mitigation imposed on 

them. Rather, it appears that as time passes, each new project has more severe 

mitigation imposed on it that then becomes the standard for all subsequent projects. 

This mitigation ‘‘ratcheting’’ creates enormous costs and tremendous uncertainty as 

has been the city of Buffalo’s experience. 

The Buffalo Municipal Reservoir Project is developing a small municipal supply 

storage reservoir in the Clear Creek Basin west of Buffalo. Buffalo’s existing water 

supply is diverted from Clear Creek about 6 miles west of the city. After project 

completion, releases from the reservoir will supplement Clear Creek flow when the 

direct flow cannot fulfill Buffalo’s water supply requirements. The project is being 

funded in part by the Wyoming Water Development Commission, a state agency. 

A Level 11—Phase I report was completed in March 1989. The report concluded 

that the preferred development option included a dam and reservoir at the Lower 

Tie Hack site on South Clear Creek, a tributary of Clear Creek. The recommended 

reservoir size is 2,425 acre-feet and the estimated cost of the dam and reservoir is 

$10,650,000. The reservoir will inundate approximately 60 acres in total, including 

8.8 acres of wetlands. In addition, the report indicated that installation of a 

$975.000 hydropower generation unit at the downstream end of the city’s water supply pipeline could be economically advantageous. The hydropower unit is addressed 

as a separate project, but construction of both components is required if the total 

project is to be economically feasible. The report also noted that the feasibility of 

the project would depend on the successful transfer of Buffalo’s existing 1933 water 

right filing for 1,640 acre-feet from Little Sourdough Creek to the dam site. This 

transfer was accomplished in 1990. 

The process of permitting this facility began in the early summer of 1992. The 

arduous and expensive process of obtaining final permits was not completed for 

nearly 4 years. The Forest Service special use permit was issued on February 23, 

1996, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit was issued on 

March 5, 1996. During the course of the nearly 4-year long ordeal, nearly $1 million 

was spent in efforts directly related to obtaining the necessary federal permits. 

The mitigation for the 8.8 acres of wetlands has cost in excess of $1 million. The 

primary reason the costs for mitigation to the City of Buffalo were so high is that 

the US Army Corps of Engineers required a 5:1 ratio for wetland mitigation. The 

5:1 ratio is not a scientifically based figure, but rather an arbitrary figure developed 

33 

by an individual within the agency. The City agreed to accept the ratio so that they 

might proceed with their project. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

We will now hear from Mr. Thad Bettner, General Manager of 

the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District from Willows, California. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THAD BETTNER, GENERAL MANAGER, GLENNCOLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, WILLOWS, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BETTNER. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure 

to be here before you today. My name is Thaddeus Bettner. I am 

the general manager of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the largest district in the Sacramento Valley, and one of the largest districts in the State of California. I am also a registered engineer in 

the State of California. 

Notwithstanding the seniority of our water rights, which date 

back to the 1880s, securing new storage is critically important to 

GCID and all water users in the Sacramento Valley. I want to 

focus on three issues in my verbal testimony today: one, why we 

need additional storage; two, our experience in working with the 

Sites Reservoir project; and three, going forward, how the Federal 

Government could help advance new storage projects. 

New storage is vitally important because the Central Valley 

Project, which we have one contract with, and our diversions are 

closely intertwined. Both the CVP and the State water project have 

lost storage capacity and yield, as well as operational flexibility. 

That yield and flexibility has eroded over time, due to increased 

contractual obligations, increased water demands to meet both the 

needs of endangered species, and also the Federal wildlife refuge 

system. 

Currently, the CVP is looking at four projects, as Congressman 

Costa said: Sites Reservoir, which I will speak of today; Shasta Expansion; Temperance Flat; as well as Los Vaqueros, all projects 

that we support. 

We do not need much in the way of additional storage or water 

supplies in the Sacramento Valley. But without new storage, the 

pressure on our existing supplies will continue to grow. The state’s 

population, as already said today in testimony by Members, continues to increase, as well as the reallocation that the environment 

increases. 

As far as Sites is concerned, GCID is one of 7 local agencies that 

joined together in August of 2010 to form the Sites Project Joint 

Powers Authority, which is a cooperative agency, along with the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources. 

Growing concerns and the delays and costs associated with the 

Sites Project, as well as a need for a local voice, led to the formation of the Sites JPA. 

Since Fiscal Year 2002, Reclamation has spent approximately 

$12.7 million studying—Sites Reservoir study and feasibility study, 

and DWR has spent millions more in addition to that. Unfortunately, despite the significant expenditure of time and effort, we 

find ourselves in a place where it is difficult to articulate the beneVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34 

fits of the project and environmental context, and how the costs 

and how the benefits would be allocated within the project. 

Nonetheless, we do know that Sites—the 1.8 million acre-foot 

total storage project for Sites would generate an average annual 

yield of 400,000 to 600,000 acre-feet of new water in both the dry 

and critical year, and in addition will generate nearly 900,000 acrefeet of additional storage in Shasta, Orville, Folsom, and Trinity 

Reservoirs through system integration. The slide that is up on your 

screen shows the different types of benefits that would accrue. And 

this slide shows, in the months through the months in October and 

September. So this would be the end of storage, or additional storage that would be added at the end of the water year to those different reservoir projects. So we see system integration as vitally 

important. 

In terms of how we reduced regulatory and bureaucratic barriers, 

I would like to highlight three. First, agencies with the environmental review process for new supply projects should be required 

to develop a simpler approach to alternatives analysis. In the case 

of Sites, Reclamation DWR investigated 52 different project alternatives. However, we now have 3 configurations that we are currently looking at. And incredibly, these were the same three configurations looked at in the 1960s. 

Second, NEPA should permit project costs to be considered in 

open fashion before the environmental review process is complete. 

We need to make certain that projects can make it through the environmental review process, have beneficiaries public and private, 

and someone can afford to pay for them. 

And third, lead Federal agencies should determine very quickly 

in the process how they are going to participate in a project. Will 

they simply be a project participant, or will they actually be constructing the project? In my mind, that is one of the most vital decisions that needs to be made early on in the process. 

Finally, we need to look at—Congress should explore more methods of highly leveraging limited Federal funding in order to do 

more with less. Specifically, Congress should authorize Reclamation to provide innovative financing similar to the TIFIA program. 

Under TIFIA, the Federal Government helps finance large-scale 

projects and helps to leverage local funds to build those projects. 

The water infrastructure version of TIFIA would greatly benefit a 

wide variety of large-scale water supply projects like Sites. 

I would encourage this Committee to give any such propose— 

careful consideration to that proposal. And I will take any questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bettner follows:] 

Statement of Thaddeus Bettner, PE, General Manager, 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 

Thank you Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of 

the Subcommittee; it is a pleasure to appear before you this morning. My name is 

Thaddeus Bettner, and I am the General Manager of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 

District (GCID), the largest irrigation district in the Sacramento Valley and the 

third largest irrigation district in the State of California. GCID covers approximately 175,000 acres in Glenn and Colusa Counties, and is located about 80 miles 

north of Sacramento. Our district contains a diverse working landscape including 

a variety of crops such as rice tomatoes, almonds, walnuts, orchards, vine seeds, cotton, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture. Just as important, we convey water to three FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
35 

eral wildlife refuges totaling more than 20,000 acres, and also deliver water to more 

than 50,000 acres of seasonally flooded wetlands. GCID is a Sacramento River Settlement Contractor and diverts water directly from the Sacramento River through 

the largest flat plate fish screen in the world. GCID’s Settlement Contract was first 

entered into in 1964 and it resolved disputes with the United States related to the 

seniority of GCID’s rights over those of the United States and, in fact, allowed the 

US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to obtain water rights from the State 

Water Resources Control Board for the Central Valley Project. GCID’s water rights 

originated with a filing in 1883 for 500,000 miner’s inches under 4 inches of pressure, one of the earliest and largest water rights on the Sacramento River. Other 

Sacramento River Settlement contracts were also entered into among water right 

holders on the Sacramento River and Reclamation. 

Notwithstanding the seniority of our water rights on the Sacramento River, securing new storage is critically important to GCID, Sacramento Valley water users and 

the state as a whole. In this context, I want to focus on three issues: (1) why we 

need additional storage in the Sacramento Valley; (2) our experience working to advance Sites Reservoir, an up to 1.8 million acre-foot capacity offstream north-of-theDelta reservoir; and, (3) going forward, how the federal government can help advance new storage projects. 

The Importance of Storage 

New storage is vitally important to GCID and all of Northern California because 

the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), which our water diversions are intertwined 

with, and the State Water Project have both lost water supply yield and operational 

flexibility. That yield and flexibility has eroded over time due to increased contractual obligations and increased water demands to meet the needs of endangered species and the state and federal refuge system. 

We do not need much in the way of additional water supplies in the Sacramento 

Valley, but without new storage, the pressure on our existing water supplies will 

continue to grow. The State’s population continues to increase and the reallocation 

of water to environmental uses is expanding. This reality continues to play itself 

out, especially given that no new investments in the development of additional 

water supply or storage have occurred. For water users north of the Delta, in the 

area of origin, the ever-increasing demand for water, coupled with no new storage, 

represents a threat to the vitality of irrigated agriculture in the Sacramento Valley, 

our local environment including the protection of the Pacific Flyway, and our 

groundwater system which sustains our rivers, creeks and streams. A strong agricultural sector and healthy environment depend heavily upon a certainty of water 

supply. Disrupt that certainty, allow the strain on existing water supplies to persist, 

and investments in agriculture will not be as readily forthcoming. That lack of investment translates into a dim future for agriculture and continued instability in 

water supplies, which will threaten the economic health of the state as a whole. 

The Sites Experience 

The North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage (NODOS) investigation is a feasibility 

study being carried out by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) 

and Reclamation, in partnership with local interests. The study emanates out of the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Report Record of Decision. One of the alternatives under consideration includes three 

configurations of a dam and reservoir located about 10 miles west of the town of 

Maxwell, California, and otherwise referred to as Sites Reservoir. 

Since Fiscal Year 2002, Reclamation has spent approximately $12.7 million on the 

Sites feasibility study alone and DWR has spent many millions more. Unfortunately, despite this effort and the many promised benefits that would result from 

the Sites project, we still find ourselves in a place where it is difficult to clearly articulate the benefits of the project, the costs, and how the project will be funded. 

The funding to date has allowed the agencies to complete a number of important 

reports, such as a project scoping report produced in 2002, an Initial Alternatives 

Information Report completed in 2006 and a Plan Formulation Report finalized in 

2008. The agencies are scheduled to release a draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 

draft Feasibility Report in the summer of this year, if the Administration approves 

the administrative draft in a timely fashion. However, the scheduled completion 

date for the final EIR/EIS and Feasibility Report is another year away, with a 

scheduled Record of Decision being issued by the end of 2013. We are hopeful that 

these dates can be met, but they will depend on funding to complete the work and 

the political will to make key decisions, at both the federal and state levels. 

36 

While part of the delay is certainly due to the complexities associated with multiple state and federal agencies being involved in the project, other delays are attributable to shifting environmental requirements. For example, delays in completing 

the Sites project environmental review process are attributable in part to changes 

in operational conditions described in the Central Valley Project Operations Criteria 

and Plans (OCAP) Biological Opinions (BOs) in 2004/2005 and then again based 

upon a Biological Opinion from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Delta 

Smelt issued in 2008. In both instances, DWR and Reclamation had to go back and 

remodel the project, based on the revised BOs. As Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Regional Office noted in a letter to ‘‘Interested Parties’’ in May 2009, ‘‘Changes are 

continuing so rapidly that our studies and reports are not keeping pace.’’ 

This new information did not, in fact, change the fundamentals of the project. The 

fundamentals of the project remained sound, but the process stalled, in spite of the 

best efforts of Reclamation and DWR, further increasing costs and further delaying 

the availability of the many benefits a Sites Reservoir will provide. 

Growing concerns about the delays and costs associated with the Sites project as 

well as the need for a local voice, led to the formation, in August of 2010, of the 

Sites Project Joint Powers Authority (Sites JPA). The Sites JPA, which includes 

Glenn County, Colusa County, Reclamation District 108, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 

District, the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Maxwell Irrigation District and Yolo 

County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, was formed with the stated 

purpose of establishing a public entity to design, acquire, manage and operate Sites 

Reservoir and related facilities to improve the operation of the state’s water system. 

The Project would also provide improvements in ecosystem and water quality conditions in the Sacramento River system and in the Bay-Delta, as well as provide flood 

control and other benefits to a large area of the State of California. The formation 

of local JPA’s was included as a key provision in the 2009 California Water Package 

Water Bond legislation for the purposes of pursuing storage projects that could be 

eligible for up to 50% of project funding for public benefits. 

As the Sites JPA began working with Reclamation and DWR, the JPA took a common sense approach. The JPA worked with Reclamation and DWR to put together 

what we refer to as Foundational Formulation Principles. In other words, first identifying the needs of the water operations system and then designing the project that 

would meet those needs. We conceived a project that would be integrated with the 

system we already have, but one that would also operate effectively regardless of 

future operational changes, such as conveyance to south-of-Delta exporters. The JPA 

wanted to maximize the benefits associated with our existing infrastructure, and 

provide as much benefit as possible to both the existing state and federal water 

projects at the lowest feasible cost. 

We approached the Sites project with the goal of making the best possible use of 

limited resources, and in the end, we believe we have identified a project that is 

both affordable and will provide significant benefits. It maximizes ecosystem benefits consistent with the State water bond, which states that at least 50 percent of 

the public benefit objectives must be ecosystem improvements. Other benefits include water supply reliability, water quality improvements, flexible hydropower generation, recreation and flood damage reduction. In short, we approached the Sites 

project with the goal of generating water for the environment while improving statewide water reliability and regional sustainability in Northern California, and we believe we have achieved that goal. 

One of the greatest environmental benefits of the project is a greatly expanded 

cold water pool that would be created in upstream reservoirs. Flow modifications to 

manage river temperatures, habitat conditions and flow stability would be greatly 

enhanced with a constructed Sites Reservoir. 

A 1.8 million acre-foot capacity Sites Reservoir, for example, would generate an 

average annual yield of 400,000 to 640,000 acre-feet, in dry and critical years, and 

in addition would provide nearly 900,000 acre-feet of additional storage in Shasta, 

Oroville, Folsom and Trinity Lakes during the operationally important months of 

May through September through the system integration and operation. 

Our experience with the Sites project has revealed at least three bureaucratic and 

regulatory challenges. First, the environmental review process that Reclamation is 

forced to deal with through existing federal law does not support the common sense 

approach that the JPA has attempted to pursue on the Sites project. Under NEPA, 

a great deal of time and money is expended on studies and analysis of multiple inferior alternatives to the original purpose and need statement, only to use the EIS 

process to eliminate these lesser alternatives and arrive back at the project that you 

originally proposed as the solution with the greatest benefit for the dollars expended. 

37 

In the case of the Sites project, Reclamation and DWR initially investigated and 

considered 52 alternative reservoir sites before identifying Sites Reservoir as the 

preferred location for an offstream, north-of-Delta storage reservoir. That iterative 

screening process was completed in 2008, yet some have recently suggested that 

even that process was carried out too quickly and perhaps the agencies should have 

taken even more time to examine still other sites before narrowing the list to three 

separate storage configurations at the Sites location. Ironically, the three configurations being evaluated today in the EIR/EIS are very similar to the project originally 

envisioned in the 1960’s. 

Second, although the Sites project would provide significant benefits in any operational environment, the environmental review process does not accommodate the 

real-world requirement that any new water supply project be flexible in, and responsive to, a constantly evolving regulatory environment. As noted above, any changes 

to the operating criteria for the federal and state water projects resulted in a requirement to develop new models to reflect those changes, when, in fact, the Sites 

project benefits remained constant regardless of the new demands for environmental 

water. 

Finally, under NEPA, the costs of alternatives are not considered until after the 

environmental review documents are completed. In our view that is just not a practical way to develop a project. In the case of water supply, you can end up with a 

project that no one can afford, sacrificing any opportunity for even incremental storage benefits. The process must consider project costs, both the total costs and how 

the project is going to be paid for, earlier in the process. 

Recommendations for Advancing New Water Storage Projects 

Reduce Regulatory and Bureaucratic Barriers 

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, and again in August 2011, President 

Obama called for further steps to enhance the efficient and effective permitting and 

environmental review of infrastructure development ‘‘through such strategies as integrating planning and environmental reviews; coordinating multi-agency or multigovernmental reviews and approvals to run concurrently; setting clear schedules for 

completing steps in the environmental review and permitting process; and utilizing 

information technologies to inform the public about the progress of environmental 

reviews as well as the progress of Federal permitting and review processes.’’ 

All of these are worthy goals, but in water resources development, at least in California, there is little evidence that these goals are actively being implemented and 

turned into new practices. 

Our experience with the Sites project suggests the following steps to reduce regulator and bureaucratic barriers are worthy of consideration: 

1. Statutory Directives.—Adopt statutory directives for all relevant departments 

and agencies to work with the states and local water supply agencies to make 

it a priority to improve the efficiency of the regulatory and permitting processes associated with water supply projects. Attitudes are important in the 

agencies, and even without mandatory deadlines, statutory directives would 

encourage the agencies to make it a priority to streamline the environmental 

review process. 

2. Statutory Deadlines.—Establish statutory deadlines where appropriate for 

the completion of the environmental review process. For example, federal agencies should expeditiously review and approve administrative drafts that then 

can be publicly released as a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Once a draft EIS is released, the agencies should be required to establish a 

timeframe within which the EIS and even a Record of Decision will be finalized. 

3. Greater Coordination.—Require all federal agencies with a role in preparing 

and reviewing NEPA documents for water storage or water resources projects 

to coordinate their reviews concurrent with one another. Earlier and better coordination is essential to resolving conflicting standards and avoiding unnecessary project delays. 

4. Alternatives Analysis.—Agencies with a role in the environmental review 

process for new water supply projects should be required to develop a simpler 

approach to alternatives analysis. Streamlining this process can save money 

and time without sacrificing the legitimate need to thoroughly explore project 

alternatives or project sites that will cause the least negative environmental 

impact. 

5. Costs.—NEPA should permit project costs to be considered in an open fashion, 

before the environmental review process is complete. Currently, Reclamation 

relies upon Feasibility Studies to examine the costs and allocation of benefits. 

We need to make certain that the projects that make it through the environVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
38 

mental review process have beneficiaries, public and private, that can afford 

to pay for them. 

6. Federal Role.—Lead federal agencies should determine their role in a project 

as soon as practicable. In water storage projects, as with other major infrastructure projects, there is growing interest in public-private partnerships and 

non-federal water supply development, in general, that may rely upon a combination of public dollars, private equity, government-backed financing and the 

like. If Reclamation is a customer for the benefits of a project rather than the 

developer of the project that should also create an opportunity to further 

streamline the regulatory and environmental review processes. 

7. Budgeting.—Regulatory and environmental streamlining means that more 

funding resources may be needed upfront to enable agencies to accelerate the 

review process and establish realistic schedules. Our experience with Sites suggests that Reclamation’s relatively modest budget requests over the years for 

the Sites study process, at a minimum, did not permit the study to proceed on 

an optimum schedule. This does not mean the agencies need to spend more 

overall, however. Limited funds should be prioritized to support completing the 

study and review process in a timely fashion. 

Innovative Financing –Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) 

Finally, Congress should explore methods of highly leveraging limited federal 

funding in order to increase its impact and, in effect, do more with less. Although 

federal funding for water infrastructure projects is already leveraged in the form of 

local matching requirements for federal grants, this leverage can be increased by developing innovative, market-based financing tools that provide significant financial 

savings for localities while shifting the bulk of financial risk from the taxpayer to 

the private sector. 

Specifically, Congress should authorize Reclamation to provide access to longterm, low interest credit assistance modeled after the highly successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which has been 

operated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) since 1998. Under TIFIA, the 

federal government helps finance large-scale and costly infrastructure projects by 

leveraging each dollar of federal funding into $10 of credit assistance and $30 of infrastructure investments. The $122 million authorized for TIFIA, the level authorized in the last transportation reauthorization bill, has allowed the program to provide $1.22 billion in credit assistance and help finance $3.66 billion in transportation infrastructure improvements annually. 

The program provides eligible applicants with access to long-term, up to 40-year, 

financing at low interest rates. Currently, the TIFIA interest rate is 3.14 percent 

for a 35-year repayment period (the program provides for a five-year window after 

substantial completion of a project where no repayment is required). On large 

projects, like the Sites project, which is currently estimated to cost $3.2 billion, 

every saved tenth of an interest point would translate to millions of dollars in local 

savings. 

Under TIFIA, projects are selected by DOT for funding based upon the extent to 

which they generate economic benefits, leverage private capital, and promote innovative technologies, among other objectives. Projects do not need to be congressionally authorized to be eligible for TIFIA financing, however, under current law, 

TIFIA financing is limited to no more than 33 percent of total project costs. Efforts 

are underway to raise this ceiling to 49 percent of total project costs, and that is 

something that we would support in any similar WIFIA program authorization. 

The TIFIA credit program offers three separate forms of financing for eligible 

transportation projects. The program can offer direct loans that offer flexible repayment terms to cover construction and capital costs of a project. TIFIA can also provide loan guarantees to enable institutional investors, such as pension funds, to 

make loans to the project sponsor. Finally, TIFIA can offer lines of credit to projects 

to represent contingent sources of financing, in the form of direct federal loans, to 

supplement project revenues and make it easier for the project to attract financing 

from the private sector. 

Finally, I would simply note that TIFIA enjoys strong, bipartisan support and it 

is noteworthy that both the House and Senate versions of the transportation reauthorization bill, including the bill that was released last week by Chairman John 

Mica, recommends increasing the annual TIFIA authorization level from $122 million to $1 billion annually. Both bills similarly recommend raising the ceiling on 

TIFIA-eligible financing to 49 percent of total project costs. This will allow the program to provide $10 billion annually in long-term, low cost credit assistance. 

39 

Again, a water infrastructure version of TIFIA would greatly benefit a wide variety of large-scale water supply projects, like Sites, and I encourage the Committee 

to give any such proposal careful consideration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jerry Brown, General Manager of 

the Contra Costa Water District from Concord, California to testify. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY BROWN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee. I would like to thank you for 

this opportunity to discuss what it takes to build new surface storage, and submit to you that my testimony can be equally applied 

to building any large water supply project in today’s world. 

My first message is that the 100,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir completed in 1997 is a model for what it takes to build new 

surface storage. Following severe drought years in the 1970s and 

1980s, the CCWD Board of Directors determined that CCWD could 

not wait for the State and Federal Government to solve its problems. In 1988, CCWD customers approved a $450 million bond 

measure to build Los Vaqueros Reservoir. 

Even as an offstream reservoir, the project included measures to 

protect sensitive Delta fish species. The CCWD Board ensured that 

a net environmental benefit was provided to the Delta with this 

project. As evidence of the success, only one Delta smelt has been 

taken at Los Vaqueros in almost 15 years of project operation, and 

CCWD’s intake is in the same vicinity as the unscreened export 

pumping facilities. 

My second message is that the 160,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros 

Reservoir expansion provides further evidence that the model 

works. Studies on the expansion were initiated as part of CALFED. 

In March 2004, 62 percent of CCWD customers voted in favor of 

the measure and to move forward with the expansion project. 

Reservoir expansion alternatives up to 275,000 acre-feet were examined in the final EIR/EIS, which was approved by both the 

CCWD Board and Reclamation in 2010. The CCWD Board decided 

to move forward on the initial phase of expansion up to 160,000 

acre-feet, and construction began in 2011. The initial phase of expansion is being funded by CCWD. The project also has the potential to provide benefits to other local water agencies. 

My third message, while there are added regulations and constraints as compared to previous areas of dam construction, successful implementation of large water projects is still possible. For 

LV and LVE, comprehensive public and stakeholder outreach was 

implemented. This goes way beyond websites, newsletters, legally 

required public hearings. Over 65 public meetings and hundreds of 

informal meetings were held with stakeholders to provide project 

information and to identify and address concerns. As evidence that 

issues were successfully addressed, only 60 comment letters were 

received on the draft EIR/EIS, and the final EIR/EIS was completed without legal challenge. 

40 

Redirected impacts to others must be avoided, and affected stakeholders, including fish and wildlife agencies, need to be involved in 

the project development. CCWD and Reclamation developed a coordination agreement that ensures that operation of the expanded 

reservoir will not injure other CVP contractors, and that ensures 

CCWD’s objectives will be met in a way that actually helps the 

CVP in its operations. 

More recently, CCWD has worked closely with East Bay MUD to 

jointly develop new drought supply solutions involving Los 

Vaqueros as an alternative to enlargement of the onstream Pardee 

Dam. 

Like many projects, there were numerous options for the expansion of Los Vaqueros, ranging from 160 to 500,000 acre-feet. The 

sizes that moved forward were, one, affordable for the need; two, 

allowed further expansion at reduced cost; and three, avoided oversizing. There is no doubt that more is better. But more right now 

is not always best for right now. A 275,000 acre-foot expansion for 

CCWD alone did not meet the good business practices test. A lot 

of that storage would be unused now, and it would be put—and it 

would put a financial burden on ratepayers. 

However, the 160,000 acre-foot reservoir was sized for right now. 

It is affordable. Its capacity will be used. It provides flexibility so 

CCWD can use some of that capacity to help other Bay Area water 

agencies. And it is easily expandable to 275,000 acre-feet. To be 

successful, a solid business case must be made, even if it means 

staging the project to deal with uncertainty. 

December 2014 is the current schedule for preparation of the 

Federal feasibility study for the reservoir expansion up to 500,000 

acre-feet. Recent studies have identified greater needs for surface 

storage, as well as opportunities for regional cooperation. Future 

expansion of Los Vaqueros is consistent with the co-equal goals of 

the Delta Plan. It meets the public benefit requirement within the 

California water bond. And CCWD is continuing to work with Reclamation and DWR to complete analysis necessary to identify the 

most cost-effective alternative for future reservoir expansion. 

I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

Statement of Jerry Brown, General Manager, Contra Costa Water District 

Chairman McClintock and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), I would like to thank the 

Committee for this opportunity to discuss what it takes to build new surface storage 

and submit to you that my testimony can be equally applied to building any large 

water supply project in today’s world. 

CCWD serves water to over 500,000 people in eastern and central Contra Costa 

County. Among CCWD’s customers are a number of large industries of national importance, including oil refineries, chemical plants and steel mills. CCWD diverts all 

of its water supply from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California 

and delivers it via the Contra Costa Canal, which is owned by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and was the first part of the 

Central Valley Project (CVP) built by Reclamation in the 1930s. CCWD is one of 

the largest Municipal and Industrial CVP water supply contractors and operates the 

Contra Costa Canal under a contract with Reclamation. CCWD has worked closely 

with Reclamation on both water operations and capital projects for over seventy 

years. 

Because CCWD is located in the Delta, at the hub of California’s water supply 

system, CCWD is intimately involved in state-wide water planning, and has been 

41 

an active participant in all the major Delta activities of the last thirty-five years, 

including the 1976–77 and 1987–1992 droughts, the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994, the 

CALFED effort, and into the present era of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and 

the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan. 

The experiences of CCWD over the past 20 years are evidence that new surface 

storage infrastructure can be built. Almost one billion dollars have been invested in 

new assets in the ground by CCWD during this timeframe. Most significantly and 

with regard to the focus of this hearing, in 1997, CCWD completed 100,000 acrefeet of new, off-stream surface storage at Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and is currently 

constructing the enlargement of that reservoir to 160,000 acre-feet. In addition, 

CCWD completed several Delta water quality projects on behalf of CALFED, and 

CCWD is replacing the four mile long, earth lined portion of the Reclamation owned 

Contra Costa Canal with a large diameter pipeline. That project will improve water 

quality, help Reclamation meet Delta water quality standards, and reduce the risk 

of floods in the Delta from a failure of the canal embankment that was not designed 

to meet current levee standards for flood protection and earthquake safety. Other 

projects successfully undertaken by CCWD include constructing significant upgrades 

and expansions of our water treatment plants, constructing two new Delta intakes 

with state-of-the art fish screens that improve water quality and reliability for our 

customers, and, together with Reclamation, constructing fish screens at our oldest 

water intake to the Contra Costa Canal at the western end of the Delta. 

CCWD has undertaken all these projects during an uncertain period when completing water projects in the Delta or its watershed has been extremely difficult. 

CCWD did not complete all of these projects alone. Our partnership with Reclamation, and with state agencies including the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), has been 

instrumental in these accomplishments. CCWD and Reclamation have worked closely to achieve the construction and enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir. CCWD 

and Reclamation are continuing the feasibility study for a further expansion of Los 

Vaqueros Reservoir, up to 500,000 acre-feet. A number of Bay Area water agencies 

have expressed interest in Los Vaqueros for their current and future drought storage needs. By building on these partnerships, CCWD believes that future storage 

projects can be successful. 

The 100,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir was completed in 1997; it is 

a model for what it takes to build new surface storage. 

Following severe drought years and associated periods of very poor Delta water 

quality in the 1970s and 1980s, the CCWD Board of Directors determined that 

CCWD could not wait for the state and federal governments to solve CCWD’s problems. In 1988, CCWD customers approved a local bond for $450 million to build the 

Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Throughout development of the reservoir project, CCWD 

worked with other Bay Area water agencies to explore partnership opportunities, 

but these agencies were not able to commit to a partnership in the project implementation and CCWD moved forward with securing new water rights and constructing the 100,000 acre-foot reservoir on its own. As it turned out, the need for 

storage did not diminish and at the time the reservoir was being completed, CCWD, 

working with others in the CALFED program, found that future expansions of the 

reservoir could be accommodated. 

Water conflicts were just as chaotic at the time the original Los Vaqueros Reservoir was being planned and constructed as they are now. California was in the 

midst of a severe drought, delta smelt and winter-run salmon were being listed 

under the Endangered Species Act, and processes were underway to require additional flows for fishery protection in the Delta and San Francisco Bay. The primary 

purpose of the original Los Vaqueros Project was to provide a consistent level of 

high quality drinking water and adequate emergency storage in case of earthquakes, 

Delta levee failures, and other disasters. CCWD was able to turn that purpose into 

an asset during the permitting process. As an offstream reservoir, the project purposes also included design and operational measures to protect sensitive Delta fish 

species and the CCWD Board of Directors ensured that a net environmental benefit 

was provided for the Delta with this project. Since the reservoir has been operational, CCWD customers have enjoyed consistently high quality water and improved emergency readiness, all while CCWD contributes to improved Delta fishery 

conditions. As evidence of the significance of this point, only one delta smelt (a 

larva) has been taken at the Los Vaqueros intake in almost 15 years of project operations, and CCWD’s intake is in the same vicinity as the unscreened export pumping facilities. A key point here is to recognize that, to be successful, a project must 

be developed to provide a net environmental benefit to ensure sustainability, as opposed to maximizing extraction without concern for impacts on the natural system. 

42 

The 160,000 acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion will be completed 

in 2012; it provides further evidence that the model works. 

Studies on the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir were initiated following the 

completion of the CALFED Record of Decision in May 2000 with funding provided 

by Reclamation and DWR. In 2001, CCWD entered into the Los Vaqueros Memorandum of Understanding with several local, state, and federal agencies participating in the expansion studies to document the common understanding for open 

and transparent evaluation of project alternatives. In March 2004, 62 percent of 

CCWD customers voted in favor of Measure N and authorized the expansion project 

to move forward. 

While the reservoir expansion studies were ongoing, CCWD and Reclamation prepared an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 

to evaluate the stand-alone benefits of a new CCWD intake in the Delta to further 

enhance water quality and operational flexibility of an expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The Middle River Intake Project was approved and construction was completed in 2010 with additional financial support from DWR and the SWRCB in recognition of statewide benefits from the new intake. Like the Los Vaqueros Project, 

CCWD’s operations with this intake provided an additional reduction in CCWD’s 

impacts to Delta fisheries through timing of operations that measurably reduced impacts and the screening of local agricultural intakes. The addition of a new intake 

also mitigated for impacts on CCWD water quality which would be incurred due to 

a reservoir outage during a multiple year construction period while the reservoir is 

enlarged. 

Reservoir expansion alternatives up to 275,000 acre-feet were examined in the 

Final EIS/EIR prepared jointly by CCWD and Reclamation in 2010. The larger reservoir alternatives were determined to improve water quality, provide drought supply, and protect Delta fisheries. However, decisions on local agency partnerships 

continued to lag behind statewide decisions on Delta conveyance solutions while 

local and state funding remained limited. The CCWD Board of Directors decided to 

move forward on an initial phase of expansion up to 160,000 acre-feet and construction began in 2011. Although the initial phase of expansion is being funded by 

CCWD to improve drought supply and water quality, the project also has the potential to provide benefits to other local water agencies. CCWD is continuing to work 

with potential local water agency partners in the initial expansion project to explore 

short term and long term opportunities to improve drought supply. As with the Middle River Intake and the original Los Vaqueros Project, the operations with the expanded reservoir also provide benefits to Delta fisheries. 

What it Takes to Build Large Water Projects: listening to and adjusting for 

the interests of partners and stakeholders, not redirecting impacts, providing net environmental benefits, and having a strong business case. 

Over the past two decades CCWD has found that, while there are added regulations and constraints as compared to previous eras of dam construction, successful 

implementation of large water projects is still possible. The hurdles may seem insurmountable, but it is possible to get permits and approvals, identify funding, and construct projects on schedule and within budget. Some of the key elements that have 

been part of CCWD’s ‘‘recipe for success’’ are described below. 

Broad Stakeholder Involvement. CCWD developed comprehensive public and 

stakeholder outreach plans at the early stages of project development. The approach 

goes way beyond web sites, newsletters, and legally required public hearings. For 

the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project, CCWD held over 65 public meetings 

and hundreds of informal meetings with stakeholders to provide project information 

and to identify and address concerns. It is not sufficient to simply hold public meetings without addressing the issues raised: the meetings were used to hear concerns 

and develop solutions that were then incorporated in the project to address those 

concerns. CCWD formed both a Customer/Stakeholder Feedback Group and an 

Agency Coordination Work Group to keep key stakeholders and agencies informed 

well ahead of the release of the Draft EIS/EIR. CCWD spent many hours developing 

relationships with the media, legislative staff, water agencies, environmental 

groups, and other stakeholders to resolve issues. The evidence that issues were successfully addressed is that only 60 comment letters were received on the Draft EIS/ 

EIR for the project (a large fraction of which concerned the desire for more bicycle 

trails in areas unrelated to the project), significant opposition was avoided, and the 

Final EIS/EIR was completed without legal challenge. 

CCWD also focused on building and maintaining strong working relationships 

with local, state and federal agencies throughout the development of the reservoir 

and Delta intake projects. These partnerships provided access to state and federal 

funding when possible but they also enhanced coordination with the CVP and State 

43 

Water Project customers. As a result of the partnerships, CCWD and Reclamation 

worked together to develop a coordination agreement that ensures that operation of 

the expanded reservoir will not injure other CVP contractors and that ensures 

CCWD’s objectives will be met in a way that actually helps the CVP in its operations. This agreement was instrumental in building trust and creating a project 

that did not just ensure no harm to others, but actually provides benefits to others. 

More recently CCWD has worked closely with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to jointly develop new drought supply solutions involving Los 

Vaqueros Reservoir that are included in their December 2011 Draft Revised Program EIR for EBMUD’s Water Supply Management Program 2040 as an alternative 

to enlargement of the on-stream Pardee Dam. 

Avoidance and Mitigation of Environmental Impacts. CCWD found early on that 

modern water projects need to go beyond avoidance of impacts and basic mitigation 

techniques. CCWD develops projects that avoid redirected impacts to others and invites the affected stakeholders to review project analyses well in advance of publication of a Draft EIS/EIR. This transparency and technical collaboration results in the 

most creative and effective project design. Again, it is not sufficient to simply show 

the analysis to others: listening to their concerns and addressing them in a way that 

is satisfactory is essential. The previously mentioned coordination agreement with 

Reclamation is an example: it started as a way to directly address concerns of potential harm but actually concluded as a way to provide mutual benefits. Where impacts cannot be avoided, such as inundation of habitat due to reservoir inundation, 

CCWD developed comprehensive mitigation strategies to enhance regional habitat 

assets and provide habitat corridors to maximize environmental benefits. CCWD 

worked closely with the fish and wildlife agencies, independent environmental experts and environmental and land use stakeholder groups to apply practical experience as well as the latest scientific information. 

Making a Strong Business Case. Like many projects, there were numerous options 

for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, ranging from 125,000 acre-feet to 

500,000 acre-feet. Each size range fit a particular need or set of needs and had its 

own costs. The sizes that moved forward 1) were affordable for the need; 2) allowed 

further expansion at reduced cost to a higher level; and 3) avoided unused capacity. 

These are important factors. There is no doubt that ‘‘more is better’’ but ‘‘more’’ 

right now is not always best for right now. A 275,000 acre-foot expansion for CCWD 

alone did not meet the ‘‘good business practices’’ test: a lot of that storage would 

be unused now, although it would put a financial burden on ratepayers. However, 

the 160,000 acre-foot reservoir was perfectly sized for ‘‘right now’’: it is affordable, 

its capacity will be used, it provides flexibility so that CCWD can use some of that 

capacity to help other Bay Area water agencies on a short or long term basis, and 

it is easily expandable to 275,000 acre-feet. The simple fact is that opposition to a 

project is generated when a proponent cannot make a good business case, or a 

project alternative that does the same job at lower cost with fewer impacts is available but not selected. To be successful, a solid business case must be made, even 

if it means staging the project to deal with uncertainty. 

Future Expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir up to 500,000 acre-feet 

The Los Vaqueros MOU was recently extended through December 2014 to coincide with the current schedule for preparation of a Federal Feasibility Study for reservoir expansion up to 500,000 acre-feet. Recent studies have identified even greater 

needs for surface storage as well as additional opportunities for regional cooperation. Future expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir is consistent with the co-equal 

goals of the Delta Plan (it is included in the Draft Delta Plan) and it meets the public benefit requirements of the proposed California Water Bond currently planned 

for November 2012. CCWD is continuing to work with Reclamation and DWR to 

complete engineering, operations, environmental, and economic analyses necessary 

to identify the most cost-effective alternative for future reservoir expansion. 

What is Required to Move Forward on Future Reservoir Expansion 

Moving forward with the next stage of expansion will require adequate funding 

for completion of the Federal Feasibility Study, decisions on Delta conveyance, regional cooperation and participation in project development, partnership and cost 

share agreements, continued outreach and stakeholder coordination, resource agency engagement and support, and strong leadership and advocacy. Patience, endurance, and hard work will continue to be required given the long lead time for major 

surface storage projects. 

44 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you for your testimony. The 

Chair is pleased to yield to the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Napolitano, for convening this important hearing today. I want to 

welcome my good friend, Norm Semanko, who is the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Idaho Water Users Association. 

And I welcome him today and thank him for testifying at this hearing. 

Today’s topic is a high priority of our state. Reducing the burdensome regulations that the Federal Government has imposed is critical to the vitality of our nation. The American people continue to 

be strapped by the bureaucracy and the many layers of protocols 

and other hindrances that continue to cause our Federal deficit to 

skyrocket. I commend the Chairman for convening this hearing 

today so we can shed some light on existing statutes that should 

be modernized. I believe that protecting our environment can be 

done in a manner which doesn’t impede our economic growth. It is 

time that we improve our regulatory structure so that we can continue to prosper as a nation. 

And I look forward to listening to your testimony today. 

STATEMENT OF NORM SEMANKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, 

BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. SEMANKO. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, members of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, and certainly Congressman Labrador, thank you for the 

great job that you continue to do representing Idaho, water users 

included. And thank you all for the opportunity to be here. 

When you look back in Western history, the Federal Government 

was not a barrier to water development. It was a catalyst. First 

came the Carey Act in 1894, encouraging private investment in 

water storage and delivery projects. Then, beginning in 1902, Reclamation commenced building water development projects across 

the West. These water projects led to homesteading and important 

developments in the West, and promoted the economic development 

of the West. 

Today, however, the emphasis in Reclamation projects has shifted from construction of dams and reservoirs to the operation and 

maintenance of existing Federally owned facilities. Without new 

sources of water, increasing urban and environmental demands 

will deplete existing agricultural supplies and seriously threaten 

the future of Western-irrigated agriculture drying up farmland and 

the rural communities dependent on the agricultural economy. 

Increasingly, state and local governments, as well as private interests, are stepping forward to advance the possibility of new storage projects. Unfortunately, Federal environmental laws such as 

the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and others continue to be used to threaten previously developed water supplies and to prevent any future water development for countless 

farms, ranches, and cities, and not just in the West. 

One key concern voiced by water users in the West relates to the 

administrative policy-making occurring within EPA and the U.S. 

45 

Army Corps of Engineers that will make it even tougher to accomplish what is already a daunting challenge. 

For example, EPA Region IV is implementing new guidelines 

that focus on proposals that contemplate developing additional 

storage capacity due to projected future demands. These guidelines 

were developed to inform local governments and water utilities of 

the actions EPA expects them to take ‘‘in order to eliminate or minimize the need for additional capacity before consideration of a 

water supply reservoir project on a stream or river.’’ 

Before EPA considers a water supply reservoir as an alternative 

to address the need for additional water capacity, the water utility 

must take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, they are implementing sustainable water management 

practices. While these guidelines have been adopted only by Region 

IV, we don’t know yet if similar standards will be proposed for the 

Western United States. 

The Endangered Species Act provides numerous barriers significant enough to doom a water project. In most cases, only the courts 

can intervene. And in the past, many have used the courts for the 

very purpose of scuttling a particular project. In the California Bay 

Delta, as well as the Klamath Project in Oregon and California, the 

ESA was used to physically shut off water to irrigated agriculture 

and other water users to protect ESA-listed fishery resources, using 

science that has been shown by the National Academy of Science 

in both cases to be questionable. 

In my home state of Idaho, 487,000 acre-feet of Federally developed water supplies have been supplied annually in an attempt to 

meet river flows downstream annually to comply with Federal Endangered Species Act requirements with little if any benefit to listed salmon stocks. 

More Federal and state, local coordination is needed in order to 

progress—for progress to be made on projects that enhance water 

supplies to meet unmet demands. In settling the cases of the past, 

there have been onerous requirements put on water users. We are 

hoping for a different outcome in Idaho. 

Our state is taking the leading role in pursuing the possibility 

of new water storage projects in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. The Idaho Water Resource Board has authorized studies 

of both raising Arrowrock Dam on the Boise River and building a 

completely new dam, Galloway, on the Weiser River, both tributary 

to the Snake River. The Arrowrock raise, which would nearly double the existing storage space to 600,000 acre-feet, would provide 

additional water supplies for the growing Boise region, as well as 

needed flood control space and environmental enhancements. The 

Galloway Project, which could provide as much as one million acrefeet of storage, could provide important benefits for downstream 

fish, while at the same time freeing up water in other parts of the 

Upper Snake River Basin for other important needs. 

Looming on the horizon for both of these Idaho projects is the 

ESA. The Boise River includes a dubious designation for bull trout 

critical habitat, all but guaranteeing a tricky section 7 consultation 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And for the Arrowrock raise, 

downstream and fish listings will require additional section 7 consultations with National Marine Fishery Service. 

46 

For more than 100 years, Western water policy has stood out as 

one of the modern era’s great successes. Sound Federal policies are 

needed going forward that will encourage and enhance continued 

investment in new water supply enhancement projects, rather than 

risking diminished domestic food production and weakened urban 

and industrial growth. Western-irrigated agriculture is a strategic 

and irreplaceable natural resource, and we must continue to protect and enhance it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Semanko follows:] 

Statement of Norman M. Semanko, Executive Director & General Counsel, 

Idaho Water Users Association, Inc., Boise, Idaho 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the House 

Water and Power Subcommittee, my name is Norm Semanko and I am here on behalf of the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA). I am the Executive Director and 

General Counsel of IWUA, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony 

today on the important topic of the need for new water storage and the development 

of new water supplies in the Western U.S. and the many regulatory challenges we 

face in trying to build new water projects today. 

IWUA is a statewide, non-profit association dedicated to the wise and efficient use 

of water resources. IWUA has more than 300 members, including irrigation districts, canal companies, water districts, municipalities, hydropower companies, 

aquaculture interests, professional firms and individuals. Our members deliver 

water to more than 2.5 million acres of irrigated farm land in Idaho. We are affiliated with both the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance. When you look back in Western history, the federal government was not a barrier 

to water development—it was a catalyst. First came the Carey Act in 1894, encouraging private investment in water storage and delivery projects, in exchange for the 

patenting of up to a million acres of federal land in each state. This led to several 

successful projects, including the construction of Milner Dam on the Snake River 

and two other private dams that together provide water to approximately 400,000 

acres of irrigated ground in the south central region of Idaho. 

Then, beginning in 1902, the federal Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) commenced building water development projects across the West. In Idaho, the early 

projects included Minidoka, Arrowrock and Owyhee Dams, to name just a few. Most 

of the large water storage facilities we currently depend upon for our water supplies 

in the West came about as a result of Reclamation’s construction years. 

These water projects led to homesteading and important settlements in the West, 

and promoted the economic development of the West. Reclamation has constructed 

more than 600 dams and reservoirs including Hoover Dam on the Colorado River 

and Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. 

Today, Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, bringing 

water to more than 31million people, and providing one out of five Western farmers 

with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland, producing 60% of the Nation’s 

fresh vegetables and 25% of its fruit and nut crops. 

Reclamation is also the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the 

western United States. Reclamation’s 58 powerplants annually provide more than 

40 billion kilowatt hours generating nearly a billion dollars in power revenues and 

producing enough electricity to serve 3.5 million homes. 

The total Reclamation investment for completed project facilities is approximately 

$11.0 billion. The Family Farm Alliance, a Western irrigated agriculture advocacy 

organization whose Advisory Committee I serve on, has estimated that over $60.0 

billion in economic benefits are provided to the U.S. economy annually as a result 

of the irrigated agriculture and dependent rural economy developed in the West, 

with $12 billion of annual economic value provided by the initial $11 billion investment in Reclamation projects. 

Today, however, the emphasis in Reclamation programs has shifted from construction of dams and reservoirs to the operation and maintenance of existing federally-owned facilities. Reclamation’s redefined official mission is to ‘‘manage, develop, 

and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically 

sound manner in the interest of the American public’’. 

Reclamation’s efforts to develop and manage water today are centered on water 

conservation and improved management in stretching existing supplies to meet the 

47 

many burgeoning water demands of growing cities and environmental laws and regulatory requirements. Reliance on our aging water storage facilities, many built at 

the turn of the last century, has never been more acute. But shrinking federal budgets due to efforts to reduce the national debt have and will continue to all but eliminate the traditional federally-constructed water storage project. 

Yet, as a result of increased demands for existing water supplies, interest in new 

storage projects continues to increase at the local and state level to replace these 

lost supplies. Without new sources of water, increasing urban and environmental 

demands will deplete existing agricultural supplies and seriously threaten the future of Western irrigated agriculture, drying up farmland and the rural communities dependent on the agricultural economy. Increasingly, state and local governments, as well as private interests, are stepping forward to advance the possibility 

of new water storage projects. 

Unfortunately, federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) have been, and continue to be, used to threaten previously developed water 

supplies and to prevent any future water development for countless farms, ranches 

and cities, and not just in the West. Even in the Southeastern U.S., where significant droughts have in some years all but dried up water supplies for cities, farms, 

energy providers and the environment in the past, these federal laws are being used 

to control, if not eliminate the construction of water storage facilities vital to the 

economic and environmental survival of the region. 

We also understand that there can be significant barriers to local, state and private development of additional storage in our Western watersheds as a result of the 

implementation of federal laws and regulations. 

My testimony will focus on three major areas of concern on potential barriers to 

the planning and development of new water storage facilities in the West and how 

we can work to reduce or eliminate these barriers: 

• Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species 

Act; 

• Administration environmental policies and processes; and, 

• The changing federal role in water infrastructure development. 

Clean Water Act 

One key concern voiced by water users in the West relates to administrative policy making occurring within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that will make it even tougher to accomplish 

what is already a daunting challenge: the obvious need to develop new water supplies to meet the growing water demands. 

Anti-Storage Bias 

For example—EPA Region 4 (which covers the Southeastern U.S.)—is implementing new guidelines that focus on proposals that contemplate developing additional storage capacity due to projected future demands. These guidelines were developed to inform local governments and water utilities of the actions EPA expects 

them to take ‘‘in order to eliminate or minimize the need for additional capacity before consideration of a water supply reservoir project on a stream or river.’’ EPA will 

also use these guidelines to evaluate water demand projections for new or significantly increased public surface water withdrawals or public ground water supply 

wells which are being reviewed through the National Environmental Policy Act or 

EPA programs. 

The Clean Water Act permit process requires a clearly stated project purpose, 

which for water supply reservoirs includes a projected demand analysis to support 

additional water capacity needs, and an analysis of alternatives. Before EPA considers a water supply reservoir as an alternative to address the need for additional 

water capacity, the water utility ‘‘must take actions to ensure’’ that, to the maximum extent practicable, they are implementing ‘‘sustainable’’ water management 

practices, which consist of effective water management, water pricing for efficiencies, water use efficiency measures, and watershed approaches. 

According to EPA Region 4, these measures ‘‘are designed to help an applicant 

eliminate the need for, or reduce the impacts to aquatic resources from future water 

facility expansions including the construction of water supply reservoirs.’’ The EPA 

guidance further states: ‘‘Any applicant for a reservoir project will be expected to 

conduct an extensive analysis using this approach in developing their water demand 

projections and alternative analysis and provide a thorough discussion of reservoir 

needs after analysis of these measures.’’ 

While these guidelines have been adopted only by Region 4, we don’t yet know 

if similar standards will be proposed for the Western U.S. In August 2010, Colorado 

48 

Governor Bill Ritter sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson describing the 

cooperative/collaborative efforts regarding the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation 

Project, which involved numerous interests representing municipal, environmental 

and agricultural entities and would result in an additional 20,000 acre-feet of storage space for consumptive uses in the Denver metro area. Although the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers supported the proposed reallocation plan, in June EPA Region 

8 staff stated they would deny it, and recommended that the ultimate decision be 

elevated to higher levels in Washington, D.C., even though the preferred project alternative was simply a reallocation of flood space to active storage within an existing storage facility. 

‘‘I am greatly concerned that a disagreement between two federal agencies could 

result in denial of a project so important to Colorado and fifteen of our communities,’’ Gov. Ritter wrote Administrator Jackson. The governor also asked that EPA 

proceed with ‘‘a thoughtful and transparent process that does not prejudge a project 

but instead balances important civic and environmental needs.’’ 

In a turn of events during October of 2010, the EPA Region 8 Administrator announced that EPA was now ‘‘comfortable with the approach taken by the Corps in 

the preliminary draft CWA 404(b)(1) analysis’’. While this was good news for project 

proponents, it took months of hard work and direct action by the Colorado Governor 

himself before EPA stood down from their initial position of no new water storage. 

Many projects with similar benefits may not be so lucky. 

Water Quality Standard Setting 

Setting water quality standards is usually a state responsibility, and EPA should 

not usurp that important role. Updating water quality standards, especially for nutrients, could prove both controversial and costly, as ‘‘numeric’’ nutrient pollution 

standards have not been universally used and/or accepted. Yet, EPA has shown a 

preference for such standards in Florida and other states where they have taken 

a more aggressive role, despite the absence, in many cases, of any proven nexus between the regulated parameters and the identified designated water body use being 

protected. 

Significant progress has been made since enactment of the landmark Clean Water 

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act almost forty years ago. The enhanced quality of 

our surface waters and the greater safety of our drinking water are testaments to 

decades of environmental protection and investment. Of course, other challenges remain, and EPA has indicated that it intends to ‘‘work more aggressively’’ to reduce 

and control pollutants that are discharged from industrial, municipal, agricultural, 

and stormwater point sources and nonpoint sources. Agency actions along these 

lines could become significant impediments to any new water resource development 

projects. 

Endangered Species Act 

The ESA provides numerous barriers significant enough to doom a water project. 

In most cases, only the courts can intervene, and in the past many have used the 

courts for the very purpose of scuttling a particular project. In the California Bay 

Delta, as well as the Klamath Project in Oregon and California, the ESA was used 

to physically shut off water to irrigated agriculture and other water users to protect 

ESA-listed fishery resources, using science that has been shown by the National 

Academy of Science in both cases to be questionable. 

In my home State of Idaho, 487,000 acre-feet of federally developed water supplies 

have been supplied annually in an attempt to meet river flows downstream annually 

to comply with federal endangered species requirements, with little, if any, benefits 

to listed salmon stocks. This water could have been used to produce crops, recharge 

our aquifers, or provide for growing cities and industries. 

While we need to develop more water storage in the areas of the West where the 

ESA drives conflict, pitting competing demands against each other for the same 

water source, that very statute could also be used to prevent the development of 

water supplies necessary to meet its own requirements for additional streamflows 

for listed species. 

More federal, state and local coordination is needed in these circumstances in 

order for progress to be made on projects that can enhance water supplies to meet 

unmet demands. On the Santa Ana River in Southern California, for instance, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently ‘‘settled’’ an ESA-driven court case challenging the Service’s decisions over critical habitat (habitat deemed necessary for 

the very survival of a species listed by the ESA as threatened or endangered) for 

the listed Santa Ana Sucker. 

In settling the case with the environmental plaintiffs, the Service greatly expanded critical habitat in the area of the river that included many miles of essenVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

tially dry river bed located directly below the Seven Oaks Dam, a Corps facility authorized to protect this area from high river flows during flood periods. The water 

districts in the area, which have seen reductions in water supplies imported from 

the California Bay Delta due to ESA restrictions, have been developing their own 

in-basin water supplies by perfecting water rights on the Santa Ana River resulting 

during a flood event. The districts are applying to the Corps for a change in release 

patterns from the Dam in order to store flood waters in the groundwater aquifers 

under their water right for later use in the basin. 

According to the Service, the area was deemed critical habitat to protect gravel 

recruitment to downstream spawning areas in the river, again using science that 

is less than robust. In order to move that gravel, streamflows would need to exceed 

levels that would cause serious flood damage downstream on the Santa Ana River, 

where millions of people live—Orange County, California—contradicting the very 

purpose of the federal flood control project and negating the development of crucial 

in-basin water supplies by flushing water away from the water districts’ water storage project. 

In Idaho, our state is taking the lead role in pursuing the possibility of new water 

storage projects, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. The Idaho Water Resource Board has authorized studies of both raising Arrowrock Dam on the Boise 

River and building a completely new dam, Galloway, on the Weiser River, both tributary to the Snake River. The Arrowrock raise, which would nearly double the existing storage space to 600,000 acre-feet, would provide additional water supplies for 

the growing Boise region, as well as needed flood control space and environmental 

enhancements. The Galloway project, which could provide as much as one million 

acre-feet of storage, could provide important benefits for downstream fish while at 

the same time freeing up water in other parts of the Upper Snake River Basin for 

other important needs. 

Looming on the horizon for both of these Idaho projects is the ESA. The Boise 

River includes a dubious designation for bull trout critical habitat, all but guaranteeing a tricky Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 

the Arrowrock raise, while downstream anadromous fish listings will require additional Section 7 consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service for both 

projects. 

The heavy-handed approach taken by the Service on the Santa Ana River, and 

the potential for similar confrontations across the West, will continue to threaten 

water supply enhancement projects unless cooperation and collaboration can be instituted as the new paradigm. Many times, endangered aquatic species can be managed and protected without resorting to the scientifically unjustified reallocation 

and inefficient use of water originally developed for irrigation and urban uses. Collaborative efforts such as habitat conservation plans or other resource management 

tools can protect species and water supplies, but it takes willing parties, and a cooperative attitude, to work together outside of the courtroom to accomplish these 

goals. 

Administration Policies 

The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory process is a major obstacle to 

realization of projects and actions that could enhance Western water supplies. We 

must continue to work with federal agencies and other interested parties to build 

a consensus for improving the regulatory process, instead of using administrative 

channels that create new obstacles. 

Watershed Planning 

The EPA has included, through its strategic planning process, provisions that 

drive the development of state watershed implementation plans. We are concerned 

with how these plans may impact existing and ongoing watershed planning efforts 

being conducted at the state and local levels, many of which include plans for new 

storage facilities. Thousands of watershed councils exist throughout the West and 

they are engaged in a variety of water conservation and environmental restoration 

projects which could be derailed or delayed by the imposition of new federal planning requirements. 

Water users are active participants in these efforts and have a large stake in ensuring that these regional projects continue. It is unnecessary and a waste of public 

resources for EPA to develop and impose new watershed planning programs, especially if storage components are affected by federal top-down planning efforts. In addition, EPA needs to be cognizant of the difference between water quality regulation 

under the Clean Water Act and water resource management which is conducted 

pursuant to state law. 

50 

Also, the current process of rewriting the federal Principles and Guidelines, now 

known as Principles and Requirements, by the Administration through the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) will impact future storage projects by enhancing 

the ‘‘value’’ of environmental impacts and mitigation. Many times, environmental 

process and mitigation requirements already account for between 30% and 50% of 

a water supply development project’s total cost, and by adding additional emphasis 

on environmental impacts these new ‘‘requirements’’ can drive a project’s cost beyond affordable levels. 

In a time when our nation is struggling to return to the path of economic prosperity, we cannot support the creation of a new federal watershed planning program, particularly for those states that have existing, productive watershed programs in place. Federal participation should be channeled through existing state 

programs, rather than creating uncertainty through cumbersome new federal requirements which threaten to derail important water quality and water conservation projects already underway. And the principles for analyzing water projects from 

the federal perspective must not inflate the costs of a project by overvaluing environmental impacts. 

NEPA Reviews 

NEPA is used throughout the federal government whenever a federal decision is 

made committing resources to a water project, including awarding a CWA permit 

for construction under federal and state laws. NEPA has traditionally been implemented in a very ‘‘stove-pipe’’ sort of manner, with each federal agency addressing 

the process individually for the same project, and with very little coordination or 

communication. 

In implementing NEPA in a manner that can allow water projects to move forward, the federal agencies need to do a better and more consistent job of defining 

and characterizing cumulative impacts for a project. As it currently stands, the 

characterization used by agencies to define cumulative impact is many times unreasonably subjective, sometimes leading to superfluous challenges to the NEPA process that can delay the process and increase costs. 

These agencies must eliminate redundant environmental review processes. 

Projects subject to NEPA analysis should only have to proceed through the environmental review process once. For example, if NEPA is completed on a water resources infrastructure project by one agency (e.g., the Bureau of Reclamation) then 

a second process should not be imposed by another agency on the same project (e.g., 

the Corps of Engineers when they consider an individual Clean Water Act Section 

404 permit). Many times the alternatives proposed for assessment by federal NEPA 

regulators are inappropriate, unrealistic, difficult-to-implement, and often in conflict 

with state law. 

In addition, federal agencies not directly involved in a project’s NEPA process 

often end up attempting to ‘‘veto’’ the final analysis Record of Decision at the eleventh hour, causing untold days and weeks of delays and additional costs involved 

in resurrecting a defensible project. This approach is inexcusable as these agencies 

are all part of one federal government and should act accordingly, coordinating efforts and concerns from the beginning of the process, not at the very end. 

On December 7, 2011, CEQ released draft NEPA guidance that outlines the following principles for agencies to follow when performing NEPA environmental reviews: 

• NEPA encourages simple, straightforward, and concise reviews and documentation; 

• NEPA should be integrated into project planning rather than be conducted 

after planning is complete; 

• NEPA reviews should coordinate and take appropriate advantage of existing 

documents and studies; 

• NEPA reviews should use early and well-defined scoping to target environmental reviews to appropriate issues and avoid unnecessary work; 

• Agencies should develop meaningful and expeditious timelines for environmental reviews; and 

• Agencies should target their responses to comments to appropriate issues 

raised. 

While the overall philosophy embedded in the above principles seems appropriate, 

it is difficult to see how the proposed guidance will actually change the status quo. 

There appears to be nothing in the CEQ draft guidance that is likely to have any 

impact on how agencies approach their NEPA responsibilities. A more direct linkage 

to ‘‘pilot’’ NEPA efforts could give stakeholders and Congress a way to set goals, 

track successes and showcase innovations in implementing these principles, but 

51 

short of clearly identified and coordinated efforts that include benchmarks and outcomes, these principles may or may not be heeded by the agencies. 

Innovative Financing 

As I indicated earlier in this testimony, the traditional federally constructed and 

funded water supply project is no longer practical or affordable, given the need to 

reduce the nation’s debt. States, local government and private interests are increasingly stepping forward to fill the void. But that doesn’t mean the federal government cannot be a partner in supporting water supply projects in the future. State, 

local and private entities can and will step up to pay for future water development 

projects, but the cost of federal requirements for such projects must be reduced to 

affordable levels. 

If the federal government and Congress are no longer willing or able to fund the 

construction of water supply development projects, then they should not expect the 

local beneficiaries to pay for expensive mitigation and environmental enhancement 

components usually required by federal agencies in permitting construction of these 

facilities. 

Obviously, the federal laws that govern environmental oversight and permitting 

will not be rolled back anytime soon; therefore, the federal government should work 

to develop additional tools that can be helpful in financing these projects to meet 

local, state and federal needs and requirements. Innovative financing tools, such as 

longer-term, low or no-interest loans and loan guarantees to enhance and leverage 

additional private financing, can be useful in expanding the availability of funding 

for water storage projects. 

Conclusion 

For more than 100 years, Western water policy has stood out as one of the modern era’s great successes. Water supply developments took large areas of the West 

that were considered uninhabitable and made them so, while producing an agricultural economy envied by the rest of the world. Today, we still enjoy the fruits of 

the investments our forefathers made in water storage and delivery infrastructure. 

Our challenge will be how we meet the continuing challenges of maintaining these 

aging facilities, the needs of growing populations (both water supply and food production), and the ever-increasing environmental requirements and restrictions of 

federal laws and regulations. 

Sound federal policies are needed that will encourage and enhance continued investment in new water supply enhancement projects, rather than risking diminished domestic food production and weakened urban and industrial economic 

growth. Relying on agriculture to be a ‘‘shock absorber’’ to soften or eliminate impending water shortage is not smart planning. Western irrigated agriculture is a 

strategic and irreplaceable national resource, and we must continue to protect it by 

developing additional sources of manageable water supplies to meet future demands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you for your testimony. 

Our final witness is Mr. Michael Gabaldon, Director of Technical 

Resources for the Bureau of Reclamation from Denver, Colorado to 

testify. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GABALDON, DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL 

RESOURCES, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DENVER, 

COLORADO 

Mr. GABALDON. Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking 

Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Michael Gabaldon. I am the Director of Technical Resources for the 

Bureau of Reclamation out of Denver, Colorado. And thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. My written statement has been 

submitted for the record, and I will summarize a few points and 

emphasize others in my verbal testimony. 

Reclamation is a water supply agency. We provide water, irrigation water, to more than 10 million acres, and drinking water to 

more than 31 million people on an average year. We have 245 milVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52 

lion acre-feet of storage, of surface storage, in our inventory. And 

that is in about 350 reservoirs throughout the West. 

As stated in my testimony, Reclamation is still actively studying 

surface water storage where it makes sense. In fact, we have 19 

storage feasibility studies going on right now underway in the 

West, and those are in various stages of—in the process. More are 

in the Pacific Northwest region, some are at the appraisal level, not 

requiring congressional action. Others are feasibility studies with 

long legislative history. No one really knows how many of those are 

going to get to actual construction; a lot of additional steps are still 

required, are still ahead of those studies, not least of which congressional action for the ones that are found to be feasible. As stated on page two of my testimony, most of the easy projects were 

built a long time ago. 

And, as the Subcommittee is very aware, the bar has been set 

pretty high for projects today, as we have already heard. What is 

known is that Reclamation management and recreation activities 

result in an annual impact to the national economy of about $55 

billion, which supports nearly about 416,000 jobs every year. Not 

bad for an agency that only has $1 billion of appropriated funds. 

Reclamation is the largest water supplier in the country. We are 

proud of the traditional mission, and we see it continuing in the 

long term. Reclamation’s mission today includes many new priorities. To illustrate that fact I would point out that since 1990 Congress has enacted just 13 Reclamation surface storage studies or 

construction projects. But in the same period Congress has added 

to Reclamation’s assistance portfolio 53 locally owned water recycling projects, 12 rural water projects, 13 river restoration projects 

with their own specific legislation, a national drought relief program, and a national desalination program, and various other authorities. 

Reclamation is up to the challenge. But it is a testament to the 

fact that real-world water managers and their representatives in 

Congress believe in a number of different ways to get water to people who need it. Surface storage is just one piece of the puzzle. I 

know that some members of the Subcommittee, as well as my fellow witnesses here today are keenly interested in four large surface 

storage projects underway in California. Several of them have been 

mentioned already: the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage 

Project; Los Vaqueros expansion north of the delta storage; and 

Shasta Dam enlargement. 

I have talked to staff at our Mid-Pacific region on those projects, 

and have—some of our technical staff in Denver are playing a very 

direct role on those studies. I will try to answer as many questions 

about those studies as I can, but my day-to-day job is in Denver. 

I will also point out I am an engineer, I am registered both in 

New Mexico and Colorado. I have worked as an engineer. I started 

my career with the Bureau of Reclamation at Ridgeway Dam as a 

construction engineer. I have been—I have designed some elements 

of the Animas-La Plata Project. I have worked on dams at Ochoco 

Dam in Oregon, and also the Minidoka replacement powerplant. So 

I am very familiar and very aware of storage and how important 

storage is to our portfolio. I am not a NEPA process expert or a 

53 

planning expert. So, in some cases, as questions come up in those 

areas I may have to respond to questions for the record. 

To sum it up, Reclamation is committed to surface storage where 

it is practical, where it is physical, legal, and financial conditions 

make sense for that storage project. It is part of our past, it is very 

much part of our past. It is very much part of our present and our 

future. And we are happy to talk to the Subcommittee today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gabaldon follows:] 

Statement of Michael Gabaldon, Director of Technical Resources, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver Technical Center, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Chairman McClintock, members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Gabaldon, Director of Technical Resources at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in Denver. I am pleased to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on the role of new surface storage in Reclamation’s water resources planning. 

Understanding what goes in to creating new Reclamation surface storage requires 

an understanding of Reclamation’s history. Reclamation was authorized with the 

signing of the Reclamation Act of 1902 by President Theodore Roosevelt. The Act’s 

first words created a source of funding within the U.S. Treasury, and declared its 

purpose to be ‘‘the examination and survey. . .and the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters for 

the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the said States and Territories. . .’’. 

With the enactment of the Reclamation Act, the United States set about the creation of dozens of projects that ultimately did far more than just provide water for 

irrigated agriculture. Power supplies, municipal water, new economies and eventually whole cities grew up around Reclamation projects in places like Boise, Idaho; 

Spokane, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Casper, Wyoming; El Paso, Texas and 

many other places. 

For decades during the early 20th century, Reclamation surveyors and engineers 

scoured the 17 western states for the best dam sites, working to bring water to as 

many farms as possible. Wide distribution of the public domain was a goal established earlier by the Homestead Act of 1862, which had offered virtually free land 

to families in parcels of 160 acres. The language of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 

before subsequent amendments, provided wide discretion to the executive branch to 

withdraw land, study and construct projects. With an emphasis on rapid growth and 

development, Reclamation labor and contractors built or modernized nearly half of 

our current dam portfolio in the first 38 years of Reclamation’s existence, with 231 

dams complete or under construction by 1940. 

In Reclamation’s early years, Congressional interest in projects was intense and 

development proceeded briskly. However, limitations in technical understanding and 

different societal priorities at the time, resulted in little or no consideration being 

given to environmental impacts, or the rights of native Americans. As a result, 

many of the early Reclamation projects brought unintended consequences that 

would be mitigated and litigated for decades, continuing into the present day. 

With enactment of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act in 1965 (Public Law 

89–72), the process of authorizing and constructing large Reclamation dams changed 

dramatically. Section 8 of the Act stated, ‘‘Effective on and after July 1, 1966, neither the Secretary of the Interior nor any bureau nor any person acting under his 

authority shall engage in the preparation of any feasibility report under reclamation 

law with respect to any water resource project unless the preparation of such feasibility report has been specifically authorized by law. . .’’. The rate of Reclamation 

projects authorized had ebbed and flowed over the years, but with enactment of PL 

89–72, projects now required more Congressional action before proceeding. Some 

began to think that Reclamation’s heyday was over, and with the enactment of the 

Recreation Act, after 1966, all surface storage projects would require individual Congressional authorization before proceeding, a requirement that continues to remain 

in force. 

Today, with more than 100 years of additional Congressional direction on top of 

the 1902 Act, the current mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation still studies, 

constructs and maintains large surface storage projects, when authorized by Congress, and in fiscal year 2012, Reclamation has a construction budget of more than 

$180 million for a variety of projects. But surface storage in the construction budget 

54 

i Narrows Dam and Reservoir, Charleston Dam and Reservoir, East Mesa Flood Detention 

Dike, McDowell Mountain Tunnel, Orme Dam and Reservoir, Powerplant, Pumping-Generating 

Plant, and Canal, San Pedro Aqueduct, San Pedro Pumping Plant, Lower Colorado River Water 

Salvage Project, Moapa Valley-Muddy Creek Project, Virgin River Dam, Dikes, and Reservoir, 

Auburn Dam, Folsom South Canal (not fully completed), County Line Reservoir and FolsomMalby Conduit not completed, Allen Camp Dam and Resevoir, Lookout Diversion Dam, Swifts 

Corral Dam and Reservoir, Paiute Dam and Reservoir, Paiute-Lead Lake Canal, Allerman Canal 

Enlargement and Extension, Watasheamu Dam, Reservoir, and Powerplant, Carson Canal, West 

Fork Dam and Reservoir, Palmer Lake, East High Canal with regulating Black Rock and Michigan Prairie Dikes, Crooked River Diversion Dam, Harper Dam and Reservoir, Yoder Dam and 

Reservoir, North Side Unit Pumping, Sexton Dam and Reservoir, Teton Dam and Power and 

Powerplant, Dayton Dam and Reservoir, Animas Mountain Dam and Reservoir, Loma Extension 

Division, Norwood Tunnel, Larrabee Dam and Reservoir. 1http://www.water.ca.gov/storage/CALFED%20Progress%20Report%202010/index.cfm 

has been joined by dam safety, and the modernization or repair of infrastructure 

built years ago. For many reasons—political, economic, social—the construction of 

traditional surface storage projects is undertaken on a much more limited basis 

than in decades past. And new societal priorities and advancements in scientific 

knowledge support increased focus on ecosystem restoration, adverse impact mitigation, efficient management, rural water, wastewater reclamation, and conservation. 

These priorities have become central parts of the Reclamation mission today, and 

some of them yield significant quantities of new water supply in a very cost efficient 

manner. There are roughly three dozen Reclamation dam projects i

, project features or 

other storage facilities across the West that were authorized by Congress but, for 

one reason or another, were never funded or constructed. The stories vary, but the 

most frequent reasons center around economics or an inadequate potential water 

market associated with the given facilities. In other cases, environmental, safety or 

geologic challenges came to light during a project’s development, and rendered its 

construction, completion or operation unfeasible. Political opposition often contributed, leaving the facilities ‘‘on the books’’ awaiting further action, but with external 

events and new priorities passing them by. 

In Washington State, Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology 

studied the Black Rock Reservoir surface storage site for nearly five years during 

the 2000s, with the aim of securing existing irrigation supplies, improving fish habitat and meeting future municipal and industrial needs. In the end, construction 

costs approaching $8 billion, a poor cost benefit ratio, and concerns about seepage 

that could mobilize contaminants at a nuclear waste facility rendered the Black 

Rock Reservoir site infeasible. Reclamation, in partnership with Washington State, 

continues to evaluate other water supply strategies, including surface water storage 

options, in the context of an integrated plan for the Yakima River basin. 

In California, the Auburn Dam surface storage reservoir was studied and actually 

entered construction, but has never been completed. It was authorized in 1965 as 

a multi-purpose facility by Public Law 89–161, and after the completion of studies 

and design, Reclamation commenced construction in 1972. In 1975, a magnitude 5.7 

earthquake occurred about 50 miles northwest of the dam site near the state of 

California’s Oroville Dam. Reclamation halted construction and eventually concluded that while the Auburn facility could be re-designed to withstand likely seismic activity, the resulting costs exceeded the Congressional cost ceiling, and dramatically changed the project’s economics. As of this date, Congress has not passed 

legislation to amend the project authorization or increase the cost ceiling. And the 

California State Water Resources Control Board cancelled Reclamation’s water 

rights permits for the project in 2008. 

As indicated, not every proposal for new surface storage pans out. Nevertheless, 

Reclamation has not abandoned surface storage proposals, or the role of surface 

storage in a diverse portfolio of water management solutions. We continue to study 

them in areas where conditions are viable, and Congressional authorization exists, 

and where the prospective environmental benefits outweigh the impacts. 

In May of 2011, Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region provided a briefing to staff of 

this Subcommittee regarding four surface storage studies underway in California 

which, as currently configured, could provide 3.75 million acre-feet of new storage 

if they are authorized, funded and constructed. They are a raise of the existing 

Shasta Dam; expanding the existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir; construction of a new 

off-stream facility north of the Delta (NODOS, known locally as Sites Reservoir); 

and the construction of a new on-stream facility on the Upper San Joaquin River. 

The studies, authorized under separate legislation, were funded historically as part 

of the joint state and federal CALFED Bay-Delta Surface Storage Investigations 

Program 1and federally under the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program in the 

55 

2http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/bsp/studies.html 

3http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/animas/faq.html 

4http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/drop2reservoir.html 

President’s budget request for the past seven years. Work will continue in the current fiscal year to bring the studies closer to completion. 

Each of the California studies is taking place in an environment of relentless 

operational and environmental change, with new biological opinions, litigation of 

those biological opinions and court-ordered analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, considerations about climate change, and widely varying hydrologic challenges inherent in California water. As of today, Contra Costa Water District has nearly completed a small expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and continues to study an even larger expansion for the future. In addition, the Mid Pacific 

Region has just released a Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 

Draft Feasibility Study Report for enlarging Shasta Dam. Public draft reports for 

a new off-stream storage facility in Northern California are expected within the 

year. While complex and time consuming, Reclamation believes that the expertise 

it provides in these studies remain an extremely important contribution to California’s long-term water future. We are committed to seeing the studies through to 

completion. 

At the same time, Reclamation has underway 12 studies 2 of major river basins 

in the west under the WaterSMART Program, authorized by the SECURE Water 

Act in Public Law 111–11. All of these major Basin Studies will consider structural 

and non-structural options to supply adequate water in the future. This will include 

consideration of potential new surface storage needs, as directed in the Act at Section 9503(b)(4)(e). 

New Reclamation surface storage has come on line in Colorado with the filling 

last year of Ridges Basin Dam/Lake Nighthorse, built pursuant to Public Laws 100– 

585 and 106–554. These laws adapted the overall Animas-La Plata (ALP) project, 

envisioned years prior, into a negotiated settlement of water rights claims by the 

Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes in southwest Colorado. The ALP 

is designed to supply an average of more than 111,000 acre-feet of water to four 

user entities including the tribes in Colorado, and three more in New Mexico 3 via 

a pipeline currently under construction that will supply water around Shiprock, 

NM. The capacity of Ridges Basin Dam/Lake Nighthorse is 120,000 acre-feet. 

New Reclamation surface storage is also online in southeastern California, with 

completion in 2010 of the Drop 2/Warren H. Brock surface storage reservoir about 

30 miles east of El Centro. In 2005, in cooperation with Imperial Irrigation District, 

Coachella Valley Water District, San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC), Reclamation completed a study 

that identified several potential alternatives to improve system efficiency on the 

Lower Colorado River, and this project was the preferred option. In December 2006, 

Section 396 of Public Law 109–432 directed Reclamation to ‘‘design and provide for 

the construction, operation and maintenance of a regulated water storage facility...at or near the All-American Canal.’’ 4 With funding provided by Southern Nevada Water Authority, MWDSC, and Central Arizona Water Conservation District, 

in exchange for water credits, work began in 2008 and was finished on time and 

under budget. The 8,000 acre-foot facility conserves previously non-storable flows estimated to be 70,000 acre-feet per year on average. In 2011 it beat expectations, conserving 121,000 acre-feet. 

Clearly, surface storage projects still happen, but many of the best sites have been 

built. And as explained above, they compete for funds with dozens of other Congressionally-mandated priorities. New storage projects proceed to completion on a more 

limited basis than in decades past. However, we believe that the diversity of 21st 

century water challenges in the West calls for a diversity of solutions, including surface storage projects, that are appropriate, environmentally and economically sound, 

and in the interest of the American public. 

This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for testimony. We will now begin 

with questioning, and I will yield five minutes to myself to begin. 

Mr. Semanko, we heard from the Ranking Member that the problem isn’t excessive regulation in building new dams, it is simply 

lack of money. What is your view of that? 

56 

Mr. SEMANKO. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman—thank you for the 

question—I think it is a combination both. Certainly in Idaho we 

have seen leadership from the Idaho Resource Board working with 

our Federal partners. And I think both the Ranking Member and 

Mr. Gardner talked about public-private partnerships and about 

Federal-state-local partnerships. And that is what we need, going 

forward. We have always had that in the West. That is why I 

wanted to point out the Carey Act, because originally Congress’s 

goal was to encourage the private sector to invest, then the Federal 

Government stepped in—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Isn’t that the way we used to finance dams? 

There would be a revenue bond either issued by the state or by a 

local entity, or money would be funded by the Federal Government, 

and then that money would be repaid by the users of these facilities in proportion to their use? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. And over the years, 

the—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Do you think we need to get back to that process? For example, the Ranking Member rightly criticized the use of 

taxpayer funds to subsidize these projects. Again, they used to be 

paid for entirely by users. In fact, Title XVI is paid entirely by taxpayers, which is probably the reason why we see these projects 

coming in, averaging twice the cost of imported waters, because the 

people that are actually using that water aren’t actually paying for 

it, it is being paid for by general taxpayers. 

Mr. Gabaldon, you said that there are 19 studies moving forward 

right now of dam sites. How many are you actually building right 

now? 

Mr. GABALDON. Those are—the 19 that I mentioned are studies. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How many are you actually building? 

Mr. GABALDON. We are not building any of those 19. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You are not building anything right now. That 

is the problem, is you guys spend countless dollars and endless 

time studying, and you are now spending absolutely no time or 

funding to actually construct these facilities. 

But let me ask you this. How many dams are you studying currently for removal? 

Mr. GABALDON. We are—as far as the original question, we are 

recently finished a couple of projects, of storage projects, the 

Animas-La Plata that I mentioned. We filled that last year—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, that is the only one this generation that 

is a major reservoir built by the Department of Reclamation. Now, 

answer my question, please. How many dams are you currently 

studying for removal? 

Mr. GABALDON. For removal we are looking at Klamath removal. 

The other project that I am aware of that is looked at for removal 

purposes is the one up in the Olympic Peninsula, Elwha Dam. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And, by the way, are either of those for safety 

purposes? 

Mr. GABALDON. The one—no, no. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, of course not. 

Mr. GABALDON. No—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Bettner, California currently has one of 

the lowest precipitation levels on record, which is quite a change, 

57 

as I mentioned, from last year, when we had one of the wettest 

years on record. During that period, did Reclamation spill a lot of 

water, simply because of a lack of capacity? 

Mr. BETTNER. Yes. The answer is yes. I can’t give you a definite 

amount from the last two years. I know for one example this year, 

even though it is dry, Reclamation is currently releasing about 

100,000 acre-feet to provide water to—for temperature control, for 

winter run. That water is being lost to the ocean right now. If we 

had a project like Sites, we could actually pick up that water and 

we would be reusing it in this dry year. So we see some benefits, 

even in a dry year, for new reservoirs and system reoperation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If the current drought continues, what do 

you—how do you anticipate this lost water to impact the people of 

your region? 

Mr. BETTNER. Our region, there will be—some of our water users 

will experience a cut on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, 

and it would probably mostly accrue to users south of the delta. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Semanko, I know that Idaho is studying 

several new water storage projects. How is the Endangered Species 

Act going to affect those projects? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Terribly, I am afraid. We have a—I don’t know 

how else to say it—a bogus designation of critical habitat on the 

Boise River. The bull trout are not really threatened. Our Governor 

is leading the way in working with Fish and Game and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to see if we can get those fish delisted. But 

if that critical habitat designation stays in place, we are going to 

have a hard time. 

And also, the downstream flow requirements for fish make it 

very tricky, and section 7 consultations will be required for both 

the Galloway And the Arrowrock raise, so they will be very—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And don’t these dams also provide an enormous array of environmental benefits? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Recreational, environmental, fisheries, local fisheries, wetlands—if you took those 

projects out, you would eliminate Lake Lowell, all of the recreation 

that is throughout the Boise and the Payette Basin. So, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. The Ranking Member is recognized for five minutes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Gabaldon, 

in a recent news article it was mentioned that the—with the exception of Animas-La Plata, a project in southwestern Colorado, Rec 

has not built any large dams and reservoirs over the last generation. Is this accurate? 

Mr. GABALDON. As I stated before, the Animas-La Plata, we also 

have the Drop Two Reservoir on the Colorado River. That is another project, and that is a project that we worked with the Sierra, 

Nevada Water Authority along with metropolitan—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And while you are at it, will you tell us 

what—I am sorry to interrupt, but my time runs—what is the 

water savings and what was the Federal expense on that one? 

Mr. GABALDON. Federal expense? The funding was put up by 

those entities I was just mentioning, Southern Nevada, Central Arizona Project. 

58 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So zero to the taxpayer. 

Mr. GABALDON. Zero to the taxpayer in that case, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the savings in water? 

Mr. GABALDON. Savings of water, we anticipated about 80,000 

acre-feet, 70,000 to 80,000 acre-feet per year. Last year it actually 

yielded about 100,000 acre-feet of water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And compared to traditional dam projects, 

how does that compare? 

Mr. GABALDON. Compared to traditional—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Cost versus yield. 

Mr. GABALDON. Animas-La Plata is 120,000 acre-feet of water, 

and that cost half-a-billion dollars. So, I mean, just a comparison 

there. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then the third question would be if it 

produces that much, what message should we get from the comparison of one project locally without Federal money, versus a Federally funded project? What is the takeaway message on that? 

Mr. GABALDON. As I stated in my testimony, I think the 

takeaway message is that the Bureau of Reclamation, we are still 

in the business of looking at everything we possibly could do to get 

water, conserve water, stretch water—new technology to storage, to 

conservation, to water conveyance. It is all part of that—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All of the above. 

Mr. GABALDON [continuing]. As was mentioned earlier. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All of the above? 

Mr. GABALDON. All of the above. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And how much water has been brought online, 

due to the Reclamation’s various conservation actions? And how 

does this compare to a traditional dam project? And I am talking 

about WaterSMART. 

Mr. GABALDON. WaterSMART? The Secretary’s goal for 

WaterSMART is 490,000 acre-feet of water for 2012. So, just to put 

that in perspective. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Brown, Los Vaqueros Reservoir was also 

one of the projects identified in CALFED, And is currently being 

studied by Reclamation. Recently you have moved forward to expand the facility yourself. Why? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, primarily because the 160,000-foot raise is 

what we needed to meet our customer needs And provide Bay Area 

reliability. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, but you are moving forward to—was it 

the funding issue, also? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, the amount of money was $100 million for the 

extra 60,000 acre-feet, and that is what we were able to afford with 

our rate payers paying. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. To any of you, I have not heard 

anybody mention Native American water rights, and how that 

would affect anything concerning this topic. 

Mr. SEMANKO. I might—Ranking Member, I might offer that not 

very many years ago, in 2004, Congress approved the Nez Perce 

Water Rights Agreement. And a key part of that was assuring that 

there were water rights available both for the Native American 

tribes and for other folks. And, as part of that agreement, there 

was a recognition that we may need additional storage going forVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
59 

ward, and that additional storage may actually provide supplies for 

everyone across the board. You don’t have to fight over the pie if 

you have other pies and cakes and cupcakes for everyone. So that 

was a key part of that agreement approved by Congress in 2004. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But many of the traditional tribes do not get 

to be at the table, unfortunately, and that is what I am finding out. 

Now, the percent of recycled water, I agree, to us in California— 

to me in California it is very critical. Does anybody figure out how 

much percentage it may take to put at the table with the rest of 

the other efficiencies to be able to create more water? And I am 

talking about real water, not paper water. 

[No response.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody? 

Mr. BROWN. In our service area, about 10 percent of our demand 

is met with recycled water. And we are an advocate of cost-effective 

recycling. Not all recycling is good recycling. There is some that— 

discharges that are already being beneficially used by their downstream users. So it just depends on the project, and it depends on 

the use. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And also—and one of the things I have 

learned is sometimes the water runoff from the farms is also contaminated with pesticides and fertilizers, which does more damage 

to the rivers and areas. 

Mr. Semanko, the Nez Perce Settlement also allows for more 

waterflows for fish, not just ESA? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Ranking Member, that is exactly right. The 

487,000 acre-feet was the agreement to settle their claims in the 

Snake River Basin adjudication and to provide some assurances 

under the Endangered Species Act. That was the subject of the consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation And NOAA fisheries. 

Yes, very much so. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So it wasn’t just ESA. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Ranking 

Member bringing up the Animas-La Plata Project. And, Mr. 

Gabaldon, when that project was built, that is probably one of the 

last—it was stated to be one of the last big projects to be built. 

Wasn’t that fulfilling the commitment that we had made to fulfill 

Indian water rights in the State of Colorado? 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes, it was. It was a settlement agreement. 

Mr. TIPTON. To be able to do that. Wasn’t that project downsized? 

Mr. GABALDON. It was downsized. 

Mr. TIPTON. Significantly to Animas-La Plata Lite. 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. In your estimation, for Animas-La Plata, the 

McPhee Project over Montezuma County, being able to store that 

water, wasn’t that beneficial, in terms of some of the commentary 

that we have heard in regards to the Endangered Species Act, to 

be able to actually maintain river flows? 

Mr. GABALDON. I don’t know. I am trying to think of the plumbing in my head. I am not sure how that would have affected the 

river flows, so I would have to answer that question for the record. 

60 

Mr. TIPTON. Some of the releases—I live there. That has actually 

been the case, in terms of what we have been able to see. 

I am a little curious, Mr. Gabaldon, in regards to the Bureau of 

Rec had partnered with CSU, Colorado State University, spending 

$229,000. And the objective of the study was to provide information 

to our state agencies and water users about the potential of agricultural water transfers to address increasing urban needs. 

I am just—it seems to me that is common sense. We saw Denver 

growing, as Mr. O’Toole noted. Why were you spending money on 

such a study? 

Mr. GABALDON. I am not familiar with that study. Again, I will 

have to answer that one for the record. We often spend money just 

to study to look at what the best alternatives are in some situations. That is probably the case here. But, like I said, I will have 

to get that for the record. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. And would it be unreasonable—and, Mr. 

O’Toole, you might want to jump in on this as well—1950, 1960, 

the U.S. Census noted that we had 130 million Americans. Mr. 

O’Toole had spoken to the need to have increased agricultural production to the tune of 70 percent to meet the growing worldwide 

population. But just in our country we have grown from 130 million 

Americans to better than 300 million Americans right now. Every 

one of them probably wants to take a bath, or going to need one. 

And we are going to have to be able to have water to be able to 

grow those crops. 

Wouldn’t it be a sensible solution, when we have, as the Chairman had noted, great snowpack years in California like we had last 

year, and even in Colorado, to be able to store more of that water, 

just to be able to plan for the future? 

Mr. GABALDON. Absolutely. It would be fantastic if we could do 

that. As I stated earlier, we would need congressional authorization 

to build those projects, to raise dams, et cetera. So—and I stated 

earlier I am an engineer, I have built dams. So I would more 

than—would like to see more of those. 

Mr. TIPTON. You are an engineer. And a lot—you build things, 

you want to be able to make them work. Do you see ways to be 

able to streamline this process? Because we heard a variety of testimony that was going on in terms of redundant regulations, road 

blocks that are being put up, increasing costs. 

I have a great concern in my district for our farm and ranch community, for senior citizens on fixed incomes. We are unnecessarily 

increasing water costs, which becomes a back door tax increase on 

struggling Americans that are trying to be able to provide for their 

families. Do you have some recommendations on how we can 

streamline this process? 

Mr. GABALDON. There is—the processes are founded in law, 

founded in regulations. It has been mentioned earlier the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA, et cetera. Those are 

the law, that is the law of the land. We need to comply with them, 

just as—— 

Mr. TIPTON. But as you noted, there are regulations in there that 

can certainly be addressed from administrative levels. 

So, Mr. O’Toole, would you like to jump in on this? 

61 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Yes, sir. And let me say in the last month I took 

a trip through the Navajo Nation from Cortez, Colorado down 

through—into Arizona, and have met with the head of farming for 

the Navajo Nation. They have now the capability to go from 70,000 

to 110,000 acres of irrigated land. It is all infrastructure. 

And I think a hearing like this is so important to understand 

that we have to make a recommitment to that commitment we 

made generations ago. It is important to have rural infrastructure. 

The light—the Animas-La Plata Lite that you referred to, sir, that 

would have had the ability to expand many acres in Colorado, if 

the original vision had been completed. 

And I think we went through a period where we kidded ourselves 

that we could live without infrastructure. We can’t. The Platte 

River Dams were built during the Roosevelt Administration, not 

Franklin. They are 100 years old. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK—— 

Mr. O’TOOLE. The infrastructure has to be dealt with, and we 

have to have new storage to be able to complete our vision. 

And the numbers in this think tank thing that I have been asked 

to participate in went from—in the year that I have been there— 

from 9.2 to 9.6 billion—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am sorry, Mr. O’Toole, I am going to have 

to cut you off. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Yes—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Time has expired, plus. Mr. Costa? 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O’Toole, 

your family has been farming for generations. My family has been 

farming for three generations. I farm today. We both obviously support additional surface storage supply. 

But let me ask you, as a farmer—I mean I—all my farmers look 

very closely at the bottom line, to stay in business. And per acrefoot on how much we pay for our water is part of the bottom line. 

There is an old proverb that says—goes something like this, that, 

you know, you don’t care what color the cat is, as long as the cat 

catches mice. We know we need additional water. Do you care so 

much about this project versus that project, or do you care most 

about what the cost per acre-foot is to the farmer? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Let me give you two answers. One is that Family 

Farm Alliance, from a perspective of our over 17-state look at the 

West, we think that storage that may not be for agriculture but 

keeps water from being transferred from agriculture is one critical 

part. But clearly, the cost of water is—the bottom line is if you are 

a farmer, the guy that rules your world is the bankers. And you 

have to make that payment—— 

Mr. COSTA. No, I know. But I mean getting back to the cost of 

water is what my farmers care the most about. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Bettner? 

Mr. BETTNER. Yes? 

Mr. COSTA. The cost per acre-foot, since this is what I am talking 

about right now, on Sites would be approximately how much on the 

current funding plan that you have? 

Mr. BETTNER. Right now it is estimated—well, at least the Bureau has estimated—about $300 per acre-foot. 

62 

Mr. COSTA. $300 per acre-foot. 

Mr. BETTNER. Right. 

Mr. COSTA. And when you blend that with existing water supplies, it makes it more affordable when you look down the road, I 

guess. 

Mr. BETTNER. That is true. But the other things we are also looking at is, is the project properly designed, are the most recent construction techniques And cost involved in that estimate, have you 

looked at the right financing mechanisms? 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Mr. BETTNER. And so, really, you know, what it costs, how you 

pay for it—— 

Mr. COSTA. And this innovative funding methodology you think 

would go a long ways toward getting you to a more cost-feasible 

project? 

Mr. BETTNER. Exactly. I mean you have to know how—what it— 

how much it costs, and who can afford to pay—— 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Brown, for the expansion of Los Vaqueros, the 

additional from 100,000 acre-feet to 275,000 acre-feet, how much 

per acre-foot are you talking about? 

Mr. BROWN. It is about $300 an acre-foot. 

Mr. COSTA. About the same as Sites. Mr. Gabaldon, I want to ask 

you. You talked about the projects that we are looking at. But has 

there been an attempt to assess how many acre-feet of water we 

will need in California or in other parts of the West, in terms of 

just a total to sustain the population growth and to maintain an 

agriculture economy? 

Mr. GABALDON. We haven’t studied that aspect of it. But that is 

certainly information that is out there, widely available. 

Mr. COSTA. Let me get a little more local. I will come back to 

that with a letter. But the Bay Delta Conservation Habitat Program that I am very hopeful will get to some decision points this 

summer, under the conveyance program assessment I am told that 

part of the hangup with your study of Shasta being raised, Sites, 

Los Vaqueros, And Temperance is talking about whether or not the 

conveyance program assessments have to be complete. What does 

that mean, in your view? 

Mr. GABALDON. The conveyance assessments, we are studying 

the conveyance—the operational side of that conveyance process. 

We now have some experience under our belt on that. We have now 

been in operations for a few years with that conveyance. So with 

that information we are taking another look at it, reformulating—— 

Mr. COSTA. Well, I think you have to take another look. Why is 

it the Bureau can’t determine the feasibility of Temperance Flat or 

Sites until there is certainty in the Delta? I mean I think both of 

those projects, frankly, stand alone but could enhance issues with 

regards to environmental restoration. 

Mr. GABALDON. I agree with that, that there is a whole lot of 

components you need to look at there. And there are some situations where they stand alone. In this situation we are looking at 

all those together. And perhaps they could be separated and looked 

at separately, so—— 

63 

Mr. COSTA. Much has been talked about in the studies, and I 

said in my opening statement these studies have gone through two 

and sometimes three Administrations. What is the shelf life of a 

study? 

Mr. GABALDON. Something this complex, with relentless operational, environmental issues associated with them, they could go 

for 10 years, 20 years. 

Mr. COSTA. So if you completed something—and I know my time 

has expired, Mr. Chairman, but just—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, it has. 

Mr. COSTA. If you completed something in 2005, how long is it 

good for, 10 years? Fifteen years? 

Mr. GABALDON. That is probably a decent estimate. 

Mr. COSTA. Great. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Gosar? 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Bettner, I am a dentist by trade, so I am a poor 

impersonation of a politician. But I understand business, and that 

is where I want to go with this one. The Administration has talked 

about most of their money has been allocated for upkeep and stuff 

like that. So I want to look at the private equity markets, and how 

we get them involved here. 

In the current environmental process, how do you see this working? You know, time to me is money. So give me an outline of how 

do you see us working this through. 

Mr. BETTNER. Well, I think we work it through the same way we 

actually do our local projects. You know, a lot of it is trying to figure out what do we need, what can we afford, how are we going 

to pay for it, how does that affect our rate-payers, in terms of recollecting those costs? And then, from there, we actually do the environmental documentation, based on that project, looking at alternatives. And then, if we need to, we may have to mitigate for 

those—that project. 

So, we set up—that way we actually address the financial side 

up front, versus right now the way it is set up is you have to do 

all the environmental work up front, and you never really get to 

how do you pay for it. And if you do, sometimes it becomes 

unaffordable. So you have lost all that time, you lost all that 

money. 

And then, when we have talked to the private markets about 

how to finance a project like Sites, they want to know, well, is this 

going to—can this project go or not? And if you can’t give them, you 

know, the say of, yes, we can get this thing built, they are going 

to take their money and go somewhere else. And so, trying to keep 

them interested in a project is vitally important. 

Mr. GOSAR. So it is a time variable, right? The longer the time 

variable, there is a cost. Right? 

Mr. BETTNER. Exactly. I mean, yes, from not only just trying to 

get the investors to invest in the project, but they are also holding 

their money out while you are trying to get studies done, design, 

and construction. So the more you can shorten up that window, the 

more you can get more people willing to invest in the project. 

64 

Mr. GOSAR. So, you know, from the environmental aspects of 

these studies, I know what Mr. Gabaldon said, that these studies 

are good for 10, 20 years. But they are really not, are they? 

Mr. BETTNER. No. I mean they are not. I mean the other big concern is not just the time, but the problem is if you go into the 

project from an environmental review standpoint saying, ‘‘This is 

a way you may operate and build it,’’ but in the end, once you decide what your financing is, and what beneficiaries want the 

water—including the environment, if you have a different project 

that comes out of that financial look, you may have to redo all your 

environmental documentation because your project has changed. 

Mr. GOSAR. So how much of your cost would be, you know, a typical project cost for mitigation for environmental permitting? 

Mr. BETTNER. Well, I can go back to, for example, one of our recent projects. We put a flat-plate fish screen on our diversion structure about nine years ago. It was a $40 million project. We spent 

$15 million in all the environmental work, permitting, and mitigation. So almost a third of the project. 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Semanko, could you give me an idea of what 

your cost would be, environmental aspects and permitting? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Yes, Mr. Gosar, I will have to get that to you for 

the record. It is substantial, though. It is almost a show-stopper for 

our projects. 

Mr. GOSAR. And it is an ever-evolving door, is it not? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Absolutely. The longer the permission process 

goes on, the permitting process, the higher the cost scope, particularly given the favorable costs we have right now. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, going back to you, Mr. Bettner, in your opinion, 

what type of reforms to the existing law do we in Congress need 

to implement to streamline this? We need rules. Don’t get me 

wrong. We need rules and regulations and hold them accountable. 

But what kind of streamlining do you see us needing? 

Mr. BETTNER. I mean I think first, really—and, you know, I 

think Reclamation needs to define its role. I think you have a staff 

of employees at Reclamation we work with that do a good job, but 

they are also bound by existing law. And if they went into a 

project, for example, not as ‘‘We are going to build this project,’’ if 

they went in versus ‘‘We are going to help support this project, we 

may help with permits, but we are not going to be the builder, financier, operator of the project,’’ that changes their role dramatically. And from there you actually can get to construction feasibility, in my mind, a lot quicker. 

As far as permitting goes, the other thing we like to have is right 

now you almost have to go consult individually with each agency 

through your process. There is really no joint consultation set up, 

unless—— 

Mr. GOSAR. So you highlight for me—this process is linear. You 

got to do point one first, then the next one, then the next one. Why 

can’t we have a project manager doing them all at the same time? 

Mr. BETTNER. Yes, I mean, to—in my mind, that would be a 

great role for Reclamation, if they could be the one that actually 

went out and did a joint consultation on it. That is part of their 

role, but maybe that is the role that they should fulfill. Giving 

them congressional direction like that would be very helpful. 

65 

If they are not in the business of wanting to build projects, finance them, let’s construct the right role for them, and they have 

the staff to get it done. 

Mr. GOSAR. Imagine that, multi-tasking. Last question. We really 

need to have litigation reform, do we not? Particularly in the—— 

Mr. BETTNER. You know what? I can’t—I am an engineer. I try 

not to—if my attorneys—if I start talking, my attorney, he will get 

mad at me. So I am not going to—I can’t answer that one. 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Semanko? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing. And 

for the witnesses, thank you for your presentations. 

Mr. O’Toole, in your written testimony you said there would be 

nothing done with water in the West without being winners and 

losers, and therein lies the problem. Most everything that occurs, 

there are winners and there are losers. And the task at hand is to 

find a way in which there are winners and winners. It becomes 

very, very complex. I would like to try to get to some solutions 

here. 

One of the issues, it seems to me, is funding at every level. At 

the Federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation has a very limited 

budget, and it stretches that budget out among projects across the 

entire West, the result of which is that they are unable—I should 

ask this as a question. 

Let me make the statement and then put a question mark at the 

end. It seems to me that they are unable to focus sufficient attention on individual projects so that things can move forward rapidly. 

Is that the question, Mr. Gabaldon? 

Mr. GABALDON. That is correct. There is competing projects, competing issues that we have to deal with in our budget. We do get, 

as I mentioned earlier, about $1 billion average in the appropriations. And with that, within that, we have a lot of safety of dams 

issues, we have a lot of competing issues there. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Now, one of the reasons you have so many 

issues to deal with is that we tell you to deal with so many issues. 

Mr. GABALDON. That is right. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I mean these are congressional directives. We 

say, ‘‘Do this,’’ ‘‘Do that,’’ and then we don’t give you enough money 

to get it done rapidly. And so, this is something that we should be 

paying attention to, both in projects, as well as with the appropriations. 

And associated with that, the question has been appropriately 

raised here as to coordination. Now, this is something that we 

could do here, with regard to directive. We could set priorities. Instead of all of us having our own individual priorities and telling 

the Bureau of Reclamation, ‘‘Get them all done,’’ we could set priorities and we could require coordination. We don’t. And, therefore, 

don’t be surprised that it doesn’t exist. Insufficient money, insufficient direction, and too many things to do with too little money. 

That is our problem, and we create it, and we could change that. 

Second, Mr. Bettner, you raised, I think, a very interesting point 

about financing. For some 15 years there has been before the ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
66 

gress an infrastructure bank which could finance cash flow projects 

such as Sites Reservoir. You did come up with a different proposal 

which you call a water infrastructure financing innovation act. I 

would like you to expand on that. You did it in about 15 seconds. 

Could you take a little longer? Because this too is a challenge that 

could be ours, if we chose to solve problems instead of just ruminating. 

Mr. BETTNER. Sure. Thank you. Yes, and I apologize, I was running out of time there. But, you know, we have looked at what has 

been done under the Transportation Infrastructure and Finance 

Act, and that was really kind of what we looked at as really the 

outline, potentially, of how it could work for water. 

But under that system, you know, you have basically about $10 

of credit assistance—for every $10 of credit assistance you get $30 

of investment in infrastructure. And what we are saying is that we 

don’t think it is likely that, you know, if we come to Congress with 

a $3 billion project in 7 years, that potentially you are going to say, 

‘‘We found money and we are going to fund it.’’ 

So, we have taken the approach of, you know, really it needs to 

be—we need to go to the private side, we need to look to them to 

help finance the project. But if there was some Federal mechanism 

to basically provide some backing to those long-term investments, 

that would allow them to come forward and be more willing to 

make investments to the project at a potentially lower interest 

rate, as well. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Essentially a loan guarantee program? 

Mr. BETTNER. Exactly, exactly. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Now, you know, if we want to do something besides just yak back and forth across these various hearings we 

could focus on innovative solutions such as this one that you have 

just recommended. 

The other issue that I really would like to get to is how we are 

going to finance all of these projects. The loan guarantee program 

is a way, but it will not sufficiently address every project, because 

there are multiple uses of a project, and therefore, multiple payers. 

This is one of the problems that holds up most every project, is who 

is going to pay for it. 

Now, that gets to be a very complex situation. But at the outset, 

you don’t know that until you know what the project is going to 

look like and where the beneficiaries might be. We need to turn our 

attention to that mechanism of how to determine who is going to 

pay for it early on in the project. 

I will let it go at that, as a challenge for us—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentleman’s time has expired. He will 

have to let it go at that. But we will have another round. 

Mr. Labrador? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Semanko, Norm, 

you discussed the proposed Boise River Arrowrock, which would increase storage space, water supplies, and provide environmental 

enhancements. I understand that you are concerned that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Services designation of the Boise River as a critical habitat for the bull trout may impede the project’s progress. 

How serious of an impediment is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

67 

critical habitat designation for the project? And what steps can be 

taken to alleviate it? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Well, Congressman Labrador, it is a serious potential impediment. Arrowrock is an early generation Reclamation 

project. And interestingly, the Corps of Engineers is the one that 

has the feasibility study authority on the Boise River, and who the 

Idaho Water Resource Board has been working with. 

Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, any time there 

is a proposed Federal action there has to be consultation, both with 

regard to the impact on the fish that are listed themselves, and the 

critical habitat that has been designated. So the inquiry with the 

fishery service will be what kind of impact would inundation of an 

additional 3,000 acre-feet have, another 5 or 6 miles of riverine 

habitat inundated have. And that is a serious consideration. 

As I mentioned briefly, Governor Otter is not impressed with the 

critical habitat designation. The water user community certainly is 

not. This has been an ongoing saga for 20-some years. The Boise 

River was not included in critical habitat a few years ago. And then 

there was a lawsuit that was conveniently settled, And the new 

critical habitat designation included this, notwithstanding the fact 

that there are significant economic impacts associated with the 

critical habitat designation that, under the Endangered Species 

Act—that is one of the few places in the Act where economics come 

into consideration. The Service certainly could have found that the 

critical habitat designation was not necessary. 

So, we have reserved the opportunity to litigate that issue, frankly. But, more importantly, the Governor, working with the Fish 

And Wildlife Service hopefully, And certainly with our Idaho Department of Fish And Game, are beginning the assessment through 

the recovery planning process of whether these fish have, in fact, 

been recovered, whether they can be delisted. And if they are 

delisted, then there would be no more critical habitat designation. 

So, that would be a roundabout way of eliminating that consideration. But, absent that, we would have to work through the Idaho 

Water Resource Board and the Federal agencies would have to 

work through the consultation process under section 7, which is, of 

course, subject to potential citizen lawsuits, as well. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Considering that Idaho is one of the few states 

in which the state doesn’t have the authority to issue permits, 

what avenues will users have to object or challenge a permit? 

Mr. SEMANKO. With regard to the Clean Water Act, that is certainly a concern. I know that the Legislature—I believe today at 

a hearing, which you are very familiar with that process, as a 

former legislator—is considering taking over the Clean Water Act 

permitting program, the MPDS program. Really, it is very difficult. 

We—you are basically—your resort is to challenging EPA in the 

Federal district court, and that is no cake walk. So it is a very difficult process. Even our DEQ in Idaho has very limited influence 

on the process. 

Mr. LABRADOR. How much do environmental permitting and 

mitigation add to project costs? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Congressman, as I mentioned to Mr. Gosar, I 

would have to get exact figures. But it can be a deal breaker. It 

depends on whether a categorical exclusion can be identified, 

68 

whether EA is sufficient, or whether you have to go through the 

full-blown EIS process. If the section 7 consultation is involved, all 

of those different variables add to the cost. So it can be astronomical. In all cases it is going to be significant enough to be a potential show-stopper. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I am going to ask you a question that may throw 

you off a little bit, and you may not have an answer for this. 

But I don’t know if you have watched on MSNBC there has been 

a series of ads where some of the political talkers talk about 

projects like the Hoover Dam and, you know, you have one of the 

political talkers are talking about how America is so great because 

we could do projects like the Hoover Dam. And every time I see 

that ad I think of the hypocrisy of some people. And I think. Could 

we build the Hoover Dam today? And would there be any impediments to building the Hoover Dam if—in today’s environment? I 

don’t know if you have an answer to that, but—— 

Mr. SEMANKO. If you ask the gentleman to my left whether we 

could build Hoover Dam again today, I haven’t seen one built lately. 

But I can tell you that one of my favorite sayings from former 

Commissioner John Keys is, ‘‘We are building new dams all the 

time. We are replacing and existing dams.’’ And that is the one 

thing that we have to make sure that we continue to do, in addition to looking at additional storage. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Gardner? 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Gabaldon, 

what is the number one priority of the Bureau of Reclamation? 

Mr. GABALDON. Our—I go back to our mission. That is to deliver 

water and generate power. That is what we are about. 

Mr. GARDNER. And what is the number one way that you are 

able to deliver water? 

Mr. GABALDON. Through working with irrigation districts, working with our stakeholders, and conveying water from point A to 

point B, from where it is abundant to where it is needed, i.e., storage, i.e., Central Arizona project comes to mind. We are also doing 

new technology, we are also doing conservation, all of those, to get 

to what our main priority is, of delivering water. 

Mr. GARDNER. In terms of delivering water and finding new 

water, what is the number one way in which you accomplish that? 

Is it—how would you rank, say, water storage as compared to conservation? 

Mr. GABALDON. I would have to go back and look at the portfolio, 

as far as how much water we have, conservation-wise, how much 

water we are yielding from those projects. Right now I would rank 

storage pretty high up there, if not at the top. That is what we 

did—— 

Mr. GARDNER. As in—— 

Mr. GABALDON [continuing]. Dams in the western—— 

Mr. GARDNER. You believe the number one focus of Bureau of 

Reclamation to meet—what you said in the mission statement—is 

water storage? 

Mr. GABALDON. I would hate to rank those, but I mean, if—that 

is where we have a lot of our water right now. 

69 

Mr. GARDNER. If that is the case, then how can we help encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to push water storage even more? 

Mr. GABALDON. I think—— 

Mr. GARDNER. In an expedited fashion? 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes. The feasibility studies we are doing now in 

California, the projects we mentioned, we have several of those 

through every region, except Great Plains Region, we don’t have 

any there. 

But in upper Colorado we are looking at El Vado Reservoir. In 

New Mexico we are looking at some projects in—— 

Mr. GARDNER. How do we get from looking at them to doing 

them? 

Mr. GABALDON. We need a congressional authorization. 

Mr. GARDNER. Congressional authorization? That is the only 

thing that is holding you back? 

Mr. GABALDON. Not—I mean we have all the requirements that 

gets to that—i.e., feasibility studies, feasibility reviews, complying 

with the laws, NEPA, et cetera, that are part of the feasibility of 

the planning projects. So, yes, all those get to the process of getting 

a project authorized. 

Mr. GARDNER. And the reason I ask that question, that series of 

questions, is in my conversations with Colorado water users, it 

seems that the one thing they come back to me and they say is it 

feels like the Administration is no longer following—the Bureau of 

Reclamation is no longer following the desires of local water users, 

the desire of local conservation district conservancy offices, but instead is pushing a mentality that is more toward conservation only, 

and away from water storage. And that is throughout all of the departments in government or agencies that are working with the 

western water agencies, whether that is the EPA or Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers. 

Mr. O’Toole, in your experience, do you think the agencies that 

you work with, your members work with, see the focus on water 

storage that was mentioned by the Bureau of Reclamation? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Actually, I think that it has been years since we 

have really had the debate that is beginning here. We indicated in 

our testimony that the Family Farm Alliance asked seven years 

ago for Bureau of Rec potential projects. We have that on a database. 

You know, I think we are reinvigorating because we understand 

the multiple needs for more storage. And so that debate has been 

reinvigorated. But I think over the last few years—the last few decades, really—we diminished our appetite, to our demise, to our— 

you know, really, not to the benefit of both farmers and growth in 

the West. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Gabaldon, I believe in Mr. O’Toole’s opening 

statement, in his written statement, he mentions several different 

regulations or practices that are interfering with the ability to 

streamline permitting, or that are blocking new projects. I would 

really be interested in getting the Bureau of Reclamation’s take on 

those. 

And I am sure you may not have had time to study it, but it is 

on page 10 of his written testimony under heading 2, where it talks 

about the 5 different points that they have identified that are imVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
70 

pediments to new projects. And if you could get back to me, Bureau 

of Reclamation get back to me on your opinion of these five points 

that he raises, I would certainly appreciate it, and then perhaps 

share that with the other members of the Committee. 

And then, Mr. O’Toole, you mentioned that—in your opening 

statement, that the easiest way for municipal, industrial, and others to find the water that they will need is through the buy-up and 

dry-up of agricultural land. 

Do the others on the panel agree with that statement? Mr. 

Bettner? 

Mr. BETTNER. Yes. I would say if things don’t change, it looks 

like the problems are going to be solved on the back of agriculture. 

That seems the direction that it is going. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Brown? 

Mr. BROWN. I think balance is the key. 

Mr. GARDNER. But do you think—I agree with you, balance is the 

key. But I mean, do you think that the easiest way to achieve 

water now is the buy-up and dry-up of agricultural land? 

Mr. BROWN. I think there is a market of willing sellers out there. 

And if they are willing to sell, then there are buyers that will buy 

the water. 

Mr. GARDNER. I will take that as a yes. Mr. Semanko? 

Mr. SEMANKO. The willing sellers in Idaho are very limited, and 

that is why you are seeing a progression toward looking at building 

additional storage, not so much for agriculture, but for the municipal demands. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. I am going to have to cut 

you off there, but we are going to do another round, starting right 

now. 

Mr. Gabaldon, I want to get the record clear on this. The New 

Melones Dam was completed in 1979. It was 2.4 million acre-feet 

of storage capacity. Animas-La Plata was 120,000 acre-feet, about 

5 percent of the capacity of the New Melones. Has the Bureau of 

Reclamation, since the New Melones, constructed any dam with a 

capacity of more than a million acre-feet? 

Mr. GABALDON. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Has it constructed any dam with capacity 

more than 500,000 acre-feet? 

Mr. GABALDON. Not since then, Mr.—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Has it constructed a dam with a capacity 

above 250,000 acre-feet? 

Mr. GABALDON. Animas-La Plata was the last one, and that was 

120,000. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Five percent of the capacity of New Melones. 

So I will correct my statement of in this generation, from 1979, 

Reclamation has not completed a single major dam, if you define 

that as over 250,000 acre-feet of storage capacity, which would be 

about one-tenth the capacity of the New Melones. 

Mr. GABALDON. I don’t know if the numbers are accurate. I assume they are. I can say that, had we had the authorization to do 

those, we would certainly be building. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, I think you would certainly be studying 

them, which is the problem, and I think that gets to the crux of 

this matter. 

71 

The cost of Sites, Mr. Bettner, was estimated at 300 acre-feet? 

Mr. BETTNER. The cost or the yield? I am sorry, what—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, for yield. The cost was 300—— 

Mr. BETTNER. Oh, yes, about $300 per acre-foot, correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. And your estimate was that, generally 

speaking, about a third of the project cost is regulatory in nature? 

Mr. BETTNER. Well, I was talking about projects that we—our 

fish screen project. I can’t speak to right now what we think the 

regulatory cost—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Just the actual construction. What would the 

cost be of—just for the actual construction of that dam? 

Mr. BETTNER. The dam itself is only about half-a-billion dollars— 

or about $500 million. But then you have other facilities that go 

along with it, a couple pipelines—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, that is exactly the question I was getting 

at. Half-a-million—or half-a-billion dollars, you said—actually to 

build the dam. 

Mr. BETTNER. But there are other parts of the project, the pipeline—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Exactly—oh, no, no, I understand. 

Mr. BETTNER. Parts of the infrastructure—right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The conveyance and infrastructure is one 

thing. 

Mr. BETTNER. Right, right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But how much, in addition to that, to meet all 

of the regulatory requirements? 

Mr. BETTNER. Well, we—one of the positives about the project is 

we haven’t identified a lot of environmental issues with the site 

itself. So we are expecting, actually, the cost of mitigation to be 

fairly low. Where we see the permitting action is we have a project 

that is going to meet multiple benefits, including the ecosystem. 

And part of that is we have to get permits from the wildlife agency. 

So, if they see the project as a benefit, we hope that our permitting process goes fairly—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Would you consider a project that costs $1,600 

per acre-foot to be economically attractive? 

Mr. BETTNER. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Would it surprise you that this Congress, in 

the prior session, approved a bill that came in at exactly that cost, 

a Title XVI recycling bill? 

Mr. BETTNER. I am not familiar with that, but—I can’t speak to 

that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Semanko And Mr. Bettner, with respect to 

the Endangered Species Act, both of you said that that is a major 

cost amplifier of these projects. Suppose we simply required that a 

hatchery fish be included in the ESA counts. How would that affect 

your projects? 

Mr. BETTNER. For our project, we are actually trying to enhance 

existing wild runs of fish. So we have four different runs on the 

Sacramento River, and so we see this—our project is trying to enhance the existing runs. Some of those are hatchery fish. But we 

see the wild runs as being just as significant. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Semanko? 

72 

Mr. SEMANKO. We would, Mr. Chairman, potentially see the fish 

that we are concerned about delisted, the salmonids, in particular. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Semanko, you mentioned the categorical 

exclusions being a cost saver of—it is my understanding the Administration, through the Council on Environmental Quality, is 

proposing new EPA guidelines for implementation of categorical exemptions. How would that affect your projects? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to look 

at that. I will tell you that categorical exclusions, in my 18 years 

of practice, are more something that I read about during law school 

than I have seen practical application of on the ground. It is very 

difficult to find a categorical exclusion that works, from my experience. So I am hopeful this will improve that, but I have had not 

had a chance to look at that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, thank you. I will yield back and recognize 

the Ranking Member. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really was looking at 

my Blackberry, because it was a mention of the use of water to develop oil shale. And—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Excuse me for interrupting. Will the Clerk 

please reset the clock? Sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the—I will mention the comment from 

the Director of Renewable Energy Development for the Rocky 

Mountain Farmers Union, who states, ‘‘We are really concerned 

about the impacts on water. We cannot gamble away our water on 

oil shale speculation. We cannot risk our farm economy.’’ That is 

another component to be able to take—to keep in mind as we are 

moving along and trying to, how would I say, remove a lot of the 

regulations by government on water. This is one other one that I 

am very concerned about. 

Mr. Semanko, on the Arrowhead Project in Idaho, you mentioned 

the critical habitat impact as an impediment. But isn’t it true there 

is a state designation, the Boise River, that it is a natural river? 

So both Federal and state regs apply? 

Mr. SEMANKO. Madam Chair, that is correct. And the Idaho 

Water Resource Board is the one that made that designation. And, 

fortunately, it is not a Federal Wild Scenic designation, so the 

Idaho Water Resource Board can change that, and is looking at 

changing that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then one of the other things that I would 

like to ask Mr. Gabaldon, the CALFED storage studies take—have 

taken a long time. Why? 

Mr. GABALDON. There is a—I mentioned some of those earlier. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Quickly. 

Mr. GABALDON. Relentless operational and environmental 

changes. We constantly are getting hit with litigation there. There 

is new biological opinions that go into litigation. So every time one 

of those happens, we need to take another look at those things. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr.—— 

Mr. GABALDON. That is just one reason. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Brown, how important was the cooperation with other agencies—and I am talking about state, local, and 

Federal—to the success of the expansion? How did you attain that 

cooperation? 

73 

Mr. BROWN. It is very critical, particularly the Bureau provided 

significant support in getting permits and approvals from the various agencies, as well as state Department of Water Resources, the 

state Control Board. 

How did we achieve that cooperation? Largely through working 

to secure the funding that was needed to support the staff that 

would provide those resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. O’Toole, on page 11 you indicate that those who benefit from new water supply infrastructure 

should help pay. And you go on to state, ‘‘In the country we are 

seeing a move in the opposite direction, where ag lands are going 

out of production, and being lost to expanding urban development.’’ 

Are you implying that we have to look at ag versus people? Because cities cannot control who moves into their city. And most of 

them do not set any parameters for builders to say, ‘‘OK, you can 

only build five units or five homes.’’ 

Mr. O’TOOLE. I really think that pitting each other against each 

other is not what is happening. The reality is there is a limited 

supply, and the money goes to the highest bidder in many cases. 

My thought process, Madam Chairman, is that the discussion 

about the need to produce food, and the importance of rural communities, has to be integrated into our long-term vision of what 

America we want. And we believe that storage can help ameliorate 

those pitting against each other. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. And I totally agree. But storage is only 

part of the portfolio that we need to look at, especially if it is above 

ground, where you have the evaporation rate only 15 to 20 percent. 

And if we have more warm weather and drought conditions, that 

is going to be worse. 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Absolutely. And, Madam Chairman, I understand 

this Committee is the Natural Resources Committee. One of the 

other huge inputs is the energy development in the West. And I 

saw where the State of Utah just released 59,000 acre-feet for 

some—nuclear fracking has a water cost. Every part of the Western economy has a water cost. Our message is that it seems to be 

always agriculture who is giving up water for those other needs. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for that answer. And, Mr. Chairman, I take a little exception to your comment about comparing the 

fish, the wild fish versus hatchery fish, to children born at home 

versus the hospital. You are not a mother. I yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Whereas I am eternally grateful of that every 

day. 

Mr. Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Gabaldon, just 

from a Colorado perspective, could you maybe speak to the importance a little bit in terms of recreation and water storage? 

Mr. GABALDON. Recreation? What—recreation? 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes. How many people recreate from Reclamation 

facilities in Colorado each year? Do you have any—— 

Mr. GABALDON. I don’t—— 

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. Estimates on that? 

Mr. GABALDON [continuing]. Know in Colorado. Certainly you 

build a reservoir—you build a dam, you have a reservoir, you are 

74 

going to have ample opportunities for recreation, from boating to 

fishing to—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So it is positive. 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. And that is part of Reclamation’s core mission—— 

Mr. GABALDON. It is. 

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. As well? 

Mr. GABALDON. Very positively. 

Mr. TIPTON. And with—and I am going to go back to a question 

I had asked earlier, just as a point of clarification. Does the Bureau 

of Reclamation facilities, do those help stabilize water flows to be 

able to make rafting possible? 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes. We are not in the business of releasing 

water for—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Specifically for that—— 

Mr. GABALDON. Right. 

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. But it does help stabilize it during a 

season, which—— 

Mr. GABALDON. It would. 

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. Probably also helps endangered species 

for instream flows and—— 

Mr. GABALDON. Absolutely, absolutely—— 

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. Those sorts of things, as well. 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. You know, one thing I would like to be able 

to speak to—and Representative Napolitano And I visited on this 

a little bit—when it comes to some of the fracking issues, when you 

get into Colorado, at least, you have to be able to own your water. 

We have a priority-based system that is regulated by the State. It 

is not a freeflow free grant that actually exists in that. So that 

ought to give you a little bit of comfort, I think. 

And, Mr. O’Toole, I would like you to maybe address something 

that I think is critical. When we are talking about conservation for 

water, are you seeing it in the farm and ranch community, that 

they are making efforts to actually conserve and make highest and 

best use of the water that they have available? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, when our community is—still looking at some 

other storage. And we integrate—as I said, we created 25-mile fishery hatching for Upper Colorado endangered fish in the reservoir. 

We did build—those are integrated into our long term. 

I would tell you that I—in a relationship I have on migratory 

birds with a committee that works on those, it is interesting to 

know the highest bird count since 1955 is now. And when you dig 

down on why, it is because of irrigated agriculture. And whether 

it be the Central Valley or Klamath or the rice—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. 

Mr. O’TOOLE [continuing]. North of San Francisco, it is an integrated process. And our bountiful wildlife populations have an 

awful lot to do with agriculture. 

Mr. TIPTON. You bet. Now, and is it your observation that our 

farmers and ranchers are trying to get the highest, best use out of 

their water as well, using some different practices in irrigation? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Well, in our family’s ranch, we integrated our irrigation and our fishery. We have a fishery that my daughter manVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:27 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72805.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
75 

ages. It is another income source. We have created an important 

bird area in our White Heron area, which is—you know, I can tell 

you that with elder birder, don’t get in front of them when they see 

a new bird. 

But there is all kinds of opportunities to integrate what we all 

know, and that is the most valuable resource is water. And if done 

right, it is a multiplicity of opportunities. 

Mr. TIPTON. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I 

would just like to hear your opinion. And Colorado and probably 

elsewhere, you know, there is an old saying that money doesn’t follow water, water follows money. And that lends itself to your comment that we are seeing more water being directed into urban 

areas. 

When I look at my district right now, Las Animas County, Otero 

County, we have literally seen areas dried up, in terms of farms 

that are going to have to be able to produce the food to be able to 

feed the people that choose to live in those cities. 

Would it be a fair representation of your views that in order to 

be able to create a win-win, to be able to feed the people, to be able 

to grow the cities, that it is in our best interest to be able to store 

more water? 

Mr. O’TOOLE. The one example I would say quickly is South 

Park, that transferred its water to the urban areas and the Eastern Slope in 1998. Storage would have been much preferable to 

that just transfer. 

And I think we reduce our viability by not looking at the whole 

picture. And for a couple of decades we haven’t looked at the whole 

picture. I think that is why this hearing, I think, is so important. 

We are going to expand our opportunities to look at a whole variety 

of ways to do all the things that we think are valuable. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, thank you. I appreciate your comments. And 

I noted you had said it has been years since we have had a debate, 

the debate that is beginning here today. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

again want to applaud you for holding this hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I want to thank you for suggesting it. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O’Toole, I want 

to thank the Family Farm Alliance for the work you do on an ongoing basis as it relates to our water resources throughout the West. 

And you play an important role. 

Mr. Bettner, I want to go back to where my line of questioning 

was before. Do you think that we need to have all the answers with 

regards to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan before we can decide 

whether or not Sites or Temperance Flat are feasible? 

Mr. BETTNER. Well, I mean we think, obviously, the Bay Delta 

Conservation Plan and some form of conveyance to the Delta is important for California. 

Mr. COSTA. So do I. 

Mr. BETTNER. And I think what we need to do is—and what we 

have done for Sites, and I am sure our friends are looking at Temperance Flat, as well—is you should be able to have a scenario 

where those projects can work with or without conveyance. And we 

have looked at Sites. We have configurations—— 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

76 

Mr. BETTNER [continuing]. Of tradeoff for benefits that can work 

under—— 

Mr. COSTA. All right. 

Mr. BETTNER [continuing]. Scenario. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, that is good. Mr. Brown or Mr. Bettner, is there 

anything you would recommend to the Committee in a short, concise statement, as to where we ought to focus our efforts on a bipartisan basis? 

Mr. BROWN. I think one of the keys is just recognizing that the 

Bureau’s role is changing in the development of surface storage, 

and they are going from an agency that builds dams to one that 

helps locals build dams. And that is the most critical focus, I think. 

Mr. COSTA. And so we ought to try to facilitate that process and 

make it work better? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. And another point I want to make is that, you 

know, this ag versus urban issue, it is not really an ag versus 

urban issue in California. We are trying to capture surplus flows. 

It is the flows that the Chairman spoke about in his opening remarks that we are trying to catch before it goes out to the—— 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Well, I think agriculture and the urban water 

users have worked closer in the last several years—and I have 

been working with them for 20-plus years—than they have in the 

past. 

Mr. Gabaldon? 

Mr. GABALDON. Gabaldon. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. I want to go back to the studies. Your time lines 

for—and I want to commend the Bureau for—and Mr. Connor—for 

getting the report out this week on Shasta. When is the time line 

for the completion of the Shasta study? Because, as I look at this 

right now, between 2002 and 2008, you have spent—2001, excuse 

me—$130 million on your studies through those fiscal years. What 

is your time line for completion? 

Mr. GABALDON. I don’t have that date with me, that time line. 

Mr. COSTA. Would you get that to the Subcommittee? 

Mr. GABALDON. I will be glad to do that—— 

Mr. COSTA. I think we all want to know that. All of us from California sure want to know that. 

With the interim report out this week on Shasta, when do you 

look for the completion of the one on Shasta? Do you know the answer to that question? 

Mr. GABALDON. I will provide that for the record. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. And also then with Sites, as well as with Los 

Vaqueros And Temperance Flat. 

Mr. GABALDON. We will be glad to provide the whole—— 

Mr. COSTA. All right. I am curious. You know, I mean we have 

a sort of a ongoing debate around here for 10 years or longer about 

what the causes of climate change are. I hope no one debates, 

though, that climate does change. It has historically changed for 

millions of years, going back to the Ice Ages. 

I am wondering with the transition, what seems to be a transition—last year 174 percent above average snowpack in the Sierra, 

and December of last year and one of the lowest recorded rainfalls 

in California in history since we have been keeping records, and 

January hasn’t been much better—although we are getting some 

77 

rain today—with these wide swings, does that change how we manage our reservoirs? And to ensure—because most projects that are 

built out of either a combination of water supply, flood control, hydroelectric power, and with these wide variations, I am wondering. 

Can we realize a supply that historically these reservoirs have provided? 

Mr. GABALDON. We definitely look at those from an operational 

standpoint. The climate change could be debated, yes, it has been 

debated. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, I don’t want to go there. 

Mr. GABALDON. From a water—— 

Mr. COSTA. But it is—it does change. 

Mr. GABALDON. From a water manager and from an engineer’s 

perspective, we know that the water is coming off earlier, off the 

mountains, off the snowpack. So we are adjusting our operations to 

meet that change, if you will. 

And also, there is more demand. On the demand side there is 

more—the agricultural season is a little bit longer. So we are making all those and—factoring all those into our day-to-day operations. 

Mr. COSTA. And to be able to forecast. I mean, as Mr. O’Toole 

said, farmers go to their bank for their annual crop loans. Unless 

you can depend upon a water supply, the banker is not going to 

loan you money. It is that simple. 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes, that is right. So we are looking at those operations. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Gosar. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If you—the Subcommittee is pleased to welcome Mr. Salazar back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Secretary of Agriculture. 

Mr. SALAZAR. How are you, sir? Good to see you. I wanted to say 

hello to all my great colleagues. Keep up the good work. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And now, sorry, Mr. Gosar. Please restart the 

clock. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I want to go back to my friend and colleague, 

Mr. Tipton. The real adage is, ‘‘Whiskey is for drinking, and water 

is for fighting over.’’ That is the real thing about the West, and 

that is how important it is. 

I also want to underscore about the conservation that ranchers 

and farmers do. I mean we have been proactive about that. You 

know, from the farmers that use low—infuse tape emitters, you 

know, in growing crops down in the South, in Arizona. It is absolutely incredible. To the innovations that Arizona has spearheaded, 

to even go further with storage, underground storage. We actually 

have water banking. We work with California and Nevada. It is 

very integrated, and it is very proactive. 

And that is where the other thing I want to go with, is that, you 

know, the needs for agriculture are very different in some cases 

than they are for drinking. You know, for our recycled gray water. 

You know, we need to put more influence on recapture and cleaning, to utilize that as a resource in reclamation. Plants need things 

like phosphates and calciums that we particularly don’t want, but 

they help grow plants. 

78 

You know, Mr. Gabaldon, can you tell me, as a percentage, what 

the cost of your studies is when you look at litigation? 

Mr. GABALDON. You mean the impacts of litigation on—— 

Mr. GOSAR. On your studies. 

Mr. GABALDON. Well, that is going to vary dramatically, depending on the nature of the litigation. And I can certainly get some information to you on what—maybe some technical projects and what 

the litigation costs were associated with that. 

I know I was area manager in Albuquerque, and I was actually 

named in a lawsuit, an endangered species, and the lawsuit cost 

not just to reclamation but to stakeholders like the Rio Grande 

Conservancy District, to the State of New Mexico, to the City of Albuquerque, to Santa Fe, et cetera, were significant. I don’t know 

what exactly those numbers were, but it is going to vary from 

project to project. 

Mr. GOSAR. And it is rising over time, the further we go down 

2000 to 2010, the costs are increasing. Right? 

Mr. GABALDON. I don’t—— 

Mr. GOSAR. So, with your experience, could you tell Mr. Bettner 

that he is kind of dreaming, if he is going to expect the kind of 

streamlining process with the environmental aspects in his project? 

Mr. GABALDON. I—from my experience in Albuquerque, front and 

center in the middle of that, all I can say is that there were some 

costs associated with that litigation. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, if we—and Mr. Semanko, if we go to these categorical exclusions, you know, for the managers, do you see that 

opening up more opportunities for litigation, more opportunities for 

litigation to hit from that perspective? 

Mr. SEMANKO. You know, I am not sure, Mr. Gosar, if it would 

open up more opportunities for litigation. I think it would provide 

more certainty if you knew, up front, as a project manager, that 

something may fit into a categorical exclusion. I think it would be 

better for the agency folks if they knew that something could fit 

into a categorical exclusion. 

Unless you changed the underlying citizen sue provisions and the 

incentive for folks to bring lawsuits because they get awarded attorneys fees, et cetera—you know the story—you won’t eliminate 

that dynamic. But categorical exclusions could provide an avenue, 

a safe harbor, if you will, more certainty for folks moving forward 

with projects if they knew that there would be a more streamlined 

NEPA process. 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Bettner, what would you say? 

Mr. BETTNER. Well, you know, in California we have categorical 

exemptions that we have that may be akin to what you may be 

talking about from a Federal level. And we call—when you do that 

through a state process, you can do what they call a ‘‘notice of exemption.’’ But you still have to file that, you still have to put it out 

for public review. And somebody can still challenge you on the assumptions you made, as to whether that—you actually complied 

with the exact exemption or not. 

So, it could hold some hope, but I am not sure it necessarily 

shortens the potential for somebody, you know, filing a lawsuit that 

you didn’t do it correctly. 

Mr. GOSAR. How do you feel about that, Mr. O’Toole? 

79 

Mr. O’TOOLE. Many of the farmers that were impacted by the 

Delta smelt decisions in the process on endangered species, that 

was a very troubling time for us. What is—our family has won 

awards on sage grouse management and other conservation issues. 

And I am proud of that. 

But I can tell you that looking down the road at the settlements 

that Interior has made with Center for Biological Diversity, for example, on expansion of more endangered species, I don’t see how 

we move forward unless we have resolved that, philosophically. 

We—many projects aren’t being done, not because they aren’t the 

right ones, but governments are looking and saying, ‘‘We just can’t 

afford the time. We have to try to do things that aren’t as efficient.’’ That isn’t the right way to run a business. 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes. It is the same thing we find in our forests. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right, thank you. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. This hearing and the debate going on here is, 

I don’t know, the 27th year, the 30th year of it. And it is not going 

to get resolved. But we do have an opportunity, it seems to me, to 

make some significant progress, at least in California. And my familiarity with some of these other projects, we could also. 

It is going to come down to, in my view, the Federal Government 

deciding how it wants to spend money. Many of these projects are 

simply held up for lack of Federal funding and, discussed earlier, 

the issue of the Bureau of Reclamation being stretched thinly 

across many, many projects, and stretching things out because of 

that. We ought to set some priorities. 

We do know that in California, with the recent completion of the 

initial investigation of the Shasta Dam, that it is a viable project, 

at least as we know it today. We also know that the Sites Reservoir 

is a viable project. What is going to hold us up a long, long time 

is figuring out who is going to pay for it. How much is environmental down the river? How much of the benefit goes to the exporters? That is the Delta exporters. How much goes to north of the 

Delta? And that is going to take a long time for both of these 

projects. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you really want to build dams, these are 

two viable dams that are ready to go. But we will be held up for 

lack of funding through process everything from the detailed engineering to ultimate financing of it. So if you have $4 billion sitting 

somewhere and you want to appropriate it and you want to build 

dams, you can build these dams probably very quickly, and you can 

get past the litigation and all of those issues. But if we are going 

to continue to cut Federal budgets on infrastructure projects, which 

is what we have been doing, then don’t expect these projects to 

move swiftly forward. 

And, by the way, I believe the New Melones Dam was built by 

the Army Corps of Engineers. Is that correct, Mr. Gabaldon? 

Mr. GABALDON. Yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. It was not a Bureau project. Maybe your point 

still remains. But for the record, let us get accurate. 

With regard to moving forward, it comes down to what we do 

here. We could set up a financing mechanism—actually, the infrastructure bank would probably be somewhat cheaper than the loan 

80 

guarantee program that Mr. Bettner has proposed, but either one 

could move projects more quickly forward. 

Now, how do we score that here? We would probably score it at 

the potential total risk, total loss, not as to what the actuarial loss 

might be. So, we also have the potential for an infrastructure bank. 

These are ways we can fund projects. We can sit here in Committee 

and talk forever. But if we want to really do something, we need 

to find the money. 

Both of those are viable ways of dealing with it, a loan guarantee 

or an infrastructure bank. We ought to move forward with legislation on both of those if we want to build projects. If we want to 

build projects beyond that, then we are going to have to come up 

with Federal money. Or not. And we are out of that game. If the 

Federal Government wants to get out of the way, as happened in 

the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, OK. But let’s not go around and 

around and around and leave the Bureau of Reclamation out there, 

not knowing whether it is going to go left or right or build or not 

build. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as you move this Committee forward, please 

try to get to the heart of the matter. Please try to get to the heart 

of the matter. Is the Majority in this House willing to put the 

money up to build the projects? Last year you cut the budgets. You 

cut the budgets. You can’t expect these projects to go forward without the money to support the projects. If you want the Federal Government out of it, then state so and let the local governments, state 

And irrigators And so forth, move it forward. But you got everybody caught between Never Never Land. So, we are going to deal with the budget very shortly, $4 billion and you will build some great dams in California. Do you have $4 

billion lying around? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I guess I will just not ask questions of the gentleman down there, but rather to state the case as I see it from 

here. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If the gentleman will yield before he yields 

back his time, I would answer by suggesting that he read the full 

written testimony, in which the witness has provided many cases 

where funding was available but the project was held up because 

of regulatory excesses. 

And I would also commend to the gentleman consideration of restoring the beneficiary pays principle to these projects, at which 

point we could free up enormous amounts of money. That is the 

way it ought to be done. Your constituents should not be paying for 

water projects in my district, nor vice versa. The projects should be 

paid for by the users of the water in proportion to their use. And 

I thank the gentleman for yielding—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, that is a—exactly what we 

ought to be talking about. We ought to be talking about exactly 

that issue, of the beneficiary pay issue. And because we go around 

and around on that, and because we are unwilling to come to a definitive decision early in the process, projects go around and 

around. It happens every day. It is happening to the projects that 

are out there. I will guarantee it is going to happen with the Shasta. 

81 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentleman has correctly stated the history 

of the last 30 years, but I am afraid we are out of time. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, it seems to me that the discussion you and 

I are having here is the central issue. And to spend time on that 

central issue is well worth—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Again, I would warn the gentleman that the 

testimony that we—the Subcommittee has received goes far beyond 

that, and points to the regulatory excesses that are actively blocking these projects, even when they are funded. That is also a central part of the issue. 

And with that, I am afraid we are going to have to conclude. I 

want to thank the Members for their time, I want to thank the witnesses for some extraordinarily helpful testimony to the Subcommittee’s work. And if there is no further business, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Jeff Denham, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

My state of California is known around the world for having ‘‘good’’ weather year 

round. That may be true for San Diego, but my district is in Northern California 

where seasons do exist in the weather patterns. There are times when California 

is in a drought and water resources are scarce. And, then there are times, like this 

past year, where sufficient water falls from the skies and down to the lakes, rivers, 

wells, and onto the farm land. 

It will prove evident this year, and especially next year in California that our 

need for increased water storage is long overdue. As my district annually endures 

hot summers, it is critical to have water resources available. The ability to store 

more water when it is plentiful in the winter is the only way to avoid severe 

drought conditions in the Central Valley when the temperatures rise through the 

summer. 

Over the years and partly due to the drought periods and the need to provide 

water to a rapidly growing population and farms led to an innovative and complex 

water storage and delivery system. As a result, the state of California and the federal government jointly operate two water projects to capture and convey water 

from where it falls to where it is in demand. 

My district depends on this water for farming and the sustainability of local communities. As water becomes scarcer in the Central Valley, the unemployment numbers rise to extreme levels. 

To begin to resolve some of the unacceptable unemployment issues in my district, 

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1604, that can increase the reliability of water resources and renew an investment in water storage and conveyance infrastructure. 

H.R. 1604 would streamline redundant environmental review processes that waste 

time, money, and deters investment in water projects. 

When the cost of the environmental review alone makes a water storage project 

a bad investment for the welfare of human life, the regulations have reached an extreme point that stifles our ability to provide for future generations. We can begin 

to provide better security in water supply and electrical generation if we commit to 

these infrastructure projects. 

Lest we all forget, that a tangential benefit to developing more water storage is 

the ability to produce and generate more renewable electricity. So, in an effort to 

go ‘‘green’’ the pursuit of more storage, conveyance, and hydroelectric power is only 

prudent. 

Now there are uncompromising environmental regulations that do not recognize 

the renewable aspect of hydropower to its full potential in favor of other, more costly 

technologies. These costs are always borne by the consumer; further stretching already thin family budgets during this economic down turn. 

82 

If we can start to streamline regulations and remove burdens on necessary water 

storage projects, we will not only create construction jobs but also farming, scientific, and engineering jobs. 

The creation of jobs today through these projects is very important, but I do not 

want to completely overshadow the benefits that come from pursuing and completing infrastructure projects that will benefit generations to come. 

Everyone likes to point out that Hoover Dam is a project that America once 

strived for, and I agree. However, I believe that we still strive to develop infrastructure for the future and the biggest hurdle that we have to overcome is our own regulatory overreaches. 

Statement of David J. Guy, President, 

Northern California Water Association 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is David Guy. I am 

the President of the Northern California Water Association (NCWA), which represents water suppliers and local governments throughout the Sacramento Valley— 

the northern part of California’s Great Central Valley. 

NCWA and water resources managers throughout the Sacramento Valley are committed to advance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water 

quality for the rich mosaic of farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities 

in the region. These ongoing sustainability efforts advance the new California policy 

in Water Code § 85021 ‘‘to improve regional self-reliance for water through investment in water use efficiency, water recycling, advanced water technologies, local and 

regional water supply projects and improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts.’’ 

We appreciate the Subcommittee convening a hearing on the important topic 

‘‘Water for our Future and Job Creation: Examining Regulatory and Bureaucratic 

Barriers to New Storage Projects.’’ We associate with and fully support the testimony provided by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District at the hearing, and we offer 

the following testimony to highlight the Sacramento Valley and the related opportunities presented by the Sites Reservoir. 

The ability to view the Sites Reservoir in a manner different from traditional 

projects presents a unique opportunity for the State of California to meet important 

(albeit elusive) policy objectives around the Bay-Delta and the Central Valley and 

to accomplish these objectives in a way that will provide water supplies to enhance 

California’s economy and the environment. 

The Foundation for New Water Storage 

Water resources managers in the Sacramento Valley are undertaking aggressive 

efforts to foster regional sustainability in the Sacramento Valley with respect to 

water supplies; yet they are continually facing greater operational constraints in 

managing these supplies. 

To better understand these operational constraints in the Sacramento Valley, 

water resources managers in the region have joined together to commission various 

technical studies and reports focused on hydrology, salmon life-cycles, and models 

for water operations in the region. For purposes of today, we recommend Efficient 

Water Management for Regional Sustainability in the Sacramento Valley, which is 

available at www.norcalwater.org. The report builds upon decades of continually improving water use efficiency in the Sacramento Valley at the farm, refuge, district, 

and basin level. The technical report provides a foundation to further evaluate improved water management opportunities in the Sacramento Valley and the tradeoffs that will need to be considered in making future management decisions. The 

report highlights many of the operational constraints that water resources managers face every day in making management decisions in the flow-through system 

in the Sacramento Valley, as well as the challenges in serving water for all the various beneficial uses—farms, refuges, fisheries, recreation and cities and rural communities. 

In this light, what has become apparent over the years is that with each advance 

in water use efficiency technology and the implementation of a new water use activity or program, the marginal potential efficiency in the region diminishes and the 

likelihood for adverse consequences—primarily for environmental values—increases. 

While water use efficiency is an integral part of a water resources portfolio, responsible and sustainable water management increasingly requires more sophisticated 

consideration of the various trade-offs resulting from water use efficiency actions or 

83 

programs and an acknowledgment that increased efficiency in certain situations 

may adversely affect water supplies for beneficial uses. As a result, water resources 

managers are dedicating tremendous resources to better understand and thus manage water resources in the Sacramento Valley to assure that the region remains in 

balance with respect to its water resources. 

At the same time, the two major projects in the region—the Central Valley Project 

and State Water Project—have both reduced their water supply yields and operational flexibility due to increased water demands and more regulatory constraints. 

This in turn has further constrained the ability to manage water within the Sacramento Valley for the various beneficial uses. It is these constraints and a better 

understanding of these constraints by water resources managers that provides the 

backdrop for the importance and need to further explore surface storage in the Sacramento Valley. 

Integrating Sites Reservoir into the Central Valley 

The Sites Reservoir is a proposed off-stream storage project located approximately 

ten miles west of Maxwell in the Antelope Valley. The proposed reservoir would 

have a storage capacity of 1.8 million acre-feet. The ability to view Sites differently 

stems in part from its location within or adjacent to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 

District (GCID) and districts within the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. This allows the reservoir to be filled during peak flow periods by conveying water into the 

reservoir through wheeling arrangements involving existing facilities. 

As such, Sites Reservoir can be integrated with local interests within the Sacramento Valley so that it is operated and managed in conjunction with various direct diversion rights, other surface water resources (including Shasta Reservoir) and 

groundwater resources. Proceeding with integrated water management will provide 

direct and indirect benefits that include reliable and certain supplies of irrigation, 

municipal and industrial and environmental water of suitable quality for beneficial 

uses in the Sacramento Valley. This also includes flexible hydropower generation, 

recreation and flood damage reduction. 

This integrated management, in turn, will provide greater flexibility in managing 

the system for the benefit of the Bay-Delta and areas that rely upon water from 

the Delta. Sites Reservoir integrated into the Sacramento Valley thus provides the 

ability to operate the existing water system in the Central Valley in a more flexible 

manner to maximize system-wide benefits. 

Moreover, when looking at the Sites Reservoir in tandem with other facilities and 

groundwater management in the Sacramento Valley, the water supply benefits are 

compounded. For example, a 1.8 million acre-foot capacity Sites Reservoir would 

generate an average annual yield of 400,000 to 640,000 acre-feet, in dry and critical 

years, and in addition would provide nearly 900,000 acre-feet of additional storage 

in Lakes Shasta, Oroville, Folsom and Trinity during the important months of May 

through September through the system integration and operation. 

In sum, Sites Reservoir will generate water for the environment, while improving 

statewide water reliability and regional sustainability in Northern California. This 

additional water supply upstream of the Bay-Delta during these critical times will 

thus provide significant benefits to the State of California. 

Achieve Co-Equal Goals 

The California Delta Reform Act in 2009 declared the over-arching policy to 

‘‘achieve the co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California 

and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.’’ Many of the agency 

proposals in California to solve the Bay-Delta favor one of the co-equal goals over 

the other or they create, either directly or indirectly, clear winners and losers with 

respect to the allocation of water supplies. By its location upstream of the Delta, 

Sites Reservoir, as part of the integrated management described above, can provide 

direct benefits to the Delta ecosystem by maximizing the amount and timing of 

water available for the Bay-Delta, including improvements in Delta water quality. 

With respect to the co-equal goal of a more reliable water supply, water will be 

available for the mosaic of water uses in the Sacramento Valley, and there will be 

a more reliable water supply for water users within the Delta, as well as water 

users south of the Delta. Sites Reservoir thus provides an opportunity to change the 

dynamic in the Bay-Delta debate and provide management flexibility in the system 

in such a way that can truly achieve the co-equal goals. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for convening this 

hearing and for the opportunity to provide this testimony. If you have any questions, please call me at 916–442–8333. 

Æ