[Senate Hearing 108-338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-338
CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 1097
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO IMPLEMENT
THE CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
92-207 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JON KYL, Arizona BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Kellie Donnelly, Counsel
Patty Beneke, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Birmingham, Thomas W., General Manager/General Counsel, Westlands
Water District, Fresno, CA..................................... 35
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California................ 2
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 5
Calvert, Hon. Ken, U.S. Representative from California........... 9
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 8
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 2
Gastelum, Ronald, CEO, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.................................... 40
Graff, Thomas J., Regional Director, Environmental Defense,
Oakland, CA.................................................... 30
Guy, David J., Executive Director, Northern California Water
Association, Sacramento, CA.................................... 46
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona......................... 7
McPeak, Sunne Wright, President and CEO, Bay Area Council, San
Francisco, CA.................................................. 28
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 1
Raley, Bennett W., Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior..................................... 12
Wright, Patrick, Director, California Bay-Delta Authority,
Sacramento, CA................................................. 25
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 79
CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I call to order this hearing of the
Water and Power Subcommittee. Welcome, and good afternoon.
Thank you all for coming. I certainly appreciate the interest
in today's hearing.
Mark Twain, at one point in time, said, ``Whiskey is for
drinking, water is for fighting.'' And I think certainly in
California, in regard to this issue, and in many parts of the
West, that statement is probably more than just a little bit
accurate.
Today, the Water and Power Subcommittee will receive
testimony on S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act.
This legislation was introduced by Senators Feinstein and
Boxer. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and various
Federal agency heads to implement the Calfed Program, a program
that has been working to improve water management in California
since its inception with the Bay-Delta Accord in December 1994.
Both California Senators should be commended for their efforts
in formulating this legislation, and their efforts to improve
the very difficult water issues in your State.
This bill authorizes $880 million for fiscal years 2004
through 2007 for program-specific areas. Authorization for
Federal participation in the Calfed Program expired in 2000;
however, various program activities have continued to be funded
under existing authorities.
I'm looking forward to learning more about this legislation
from today's witnesses. In particular, I am interested in
understanding the extent of the existing Federal authorities
and whether additional authorization is necessary. I would also
like to understand how the Calfed Program is progressing, in
terms of water-supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem
restoration, and levy system integrity. And, finally, I would
hope that we would learn how much funding has been expended
pursuant to the Calfed Program to date, and how much funding is
needed for its completion.
Now, I know that there is a lot of interest in this
hearing. We've received many requests from groups wishing to
testify. I'd like to note that, under our committee rules, any
interested party may submit testimony for the hearing record,
which will remain open for an additional 2 weeks.
The committee has already received written testimony from
the Hoopa Valley Tribe, which I would like to enter into the
hearing record.
We have three panels this afternoon--a congressional panel,
the administration, and a public-stakeholder panel--but before
we move into the panel, I would like to recognize our committee
members for opening statements at this time, in the order in
which they arrived.
Senator Feinstein.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California
I am pleased today that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee is holding a hearing on S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta
Reauthorization Act, introduced by my colleague, Senator Feinstein. As
you know, I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agency heads to
participate in the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
For decades, water allocation in California was conducted through
endless appeals, lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such
battles were painful and they prevented us from finding real solutions
to our state's very real water problems. In 1994, a new state-federal
partnership program called CALFED promised a better way. Through a plan
to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of
Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and
environment, CALFED was committed to identifying a solution that all
water users could share.
Over the years, what has made CALFED work is that it employs a
consensus approach that balances the needs of the various interests
competing for California's scarce water resources. This balance is most
clearly articulated in the Record of Decision (ROD) that was agreed to
on August 28, 2000 by the federal government and the State of
California. The CALFED ROD outlines clearly the CALFED Bay-Delta
Programs' goals and repeatedly reiterates the need to move forward with
these goals in a balanced manner.
This legislation authorizes the federal agencies to undertake the
actions and activities identified in the ROD. It is our intent that all
activities are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the ROD.
This legislation is not intended to authorize activities, such as major
construction projects, that would otherwise require completion of
feasibility studies, permits under section 404(a) of the Clean Water
Act and other applicable laws, and project-specific authorizations. In
addition, the legislation requires that federal participation in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program proceed in a way that is consistent with other
laws.
This legislation provides a carefully crafted, balanced approach
for meeting water supply needs, improving water quality, and
environmental restoration. Thus, the bill would protect the fragile
Bay-Delta region, while addressing the entire state's water needs in a
comprehensive manner.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has played a vital role in meeting
California's water needs. This bill will ensure that continues.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you very much for holding this hearing. I also want to
thank Chairman Domenici and ranking member Bingaman for
granting my request to hold this hearing. And I want to welcome
Congressman Ken Calvert, who's been the leader in the House
with the bill--while not quite like this bill, not that
different from the bill, with no major differences that are
irreconcilable that I can see.
And I also want to thank Bennett Raley. I want to commend
you for your leadership on the Quantification Settlement
Agreement, which gradually weans California off of the Colorado
River down to 4.4 million acre-feet over the next 15 years. Ron
Gastelum, from the Metropolitan Water District, who is also
here, and others, played a very critical role in these
negotiations. I know it wasn't easy. I want to thank you for
your steadfastness in the four districts that were involved.
I think this is really a big chip off of the shoulders of
Colorado's River States and their Senators, and I hope it helps
us with Calfed. Because, if you think for a moment, you can't
remove 700,000 acre-feet of water from California without
finding a way to gain other water to replace it.
My view is that if we don't pass a Calfed bill now,
California will not have enough water in a decade or so. The
electricity crisis is just a forerunner, in a minor way, to
what will happen with respect to water. The last time we
increased our water infrastructure was the mid-1960's, when
Governor Pat Brown built the California Water Project. And, at
that time, we were 16 million people. Today, we're 36 million
people, and we're going to be 50 million people within the next
15 to 20 years. So this program is not ``too much, too soon.''
It even could be ``too little, too late.''
The essence of Calfed--and I want to take a couple of
minutes--is creating a predictable environment and a
cooperative framework for California's communities to plan for
their water supply and for protection of fish, salmon,
fisheries, and the environment. There are three core principles
enshrined in the bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced:
balance--the program goes together, it moves forward together;
consistency with the record of decision; and a partnership
between the State and Federal Government.
California has many different water needs. Ecological
restoration for the environment. Yesterday, I met with
Westlands, today I met with the Hoopa Tribe, both of whom have
concerns about the Trinity River. They need to come together.
They need to settle these concerns. Recycling, desalination,
water quality, and conveyance for cities, and storage, both
ground water and surface, for our farms and our people.
California is prone to drought, so it makes sense to store
water taken from wet years for use in dry years.
A Calfed bill must evenhandedly provide for all these
interests so Californians, all of them, can rally around it.
That's why the bill we have introduced explicitly requires
balanced implementation. And I must tell you--and I must thank
Senator Kyl, of Arizona. I know he's relieved we're off the
Colorado River, or going off the Colorado River, but he has
really done yeoman service in helping with this bill, and I'm
very, very grateful for that help.
Our bill respects that Calfed has a history, and it
respects the past agreements that Californians have made.
I want to just quickly go a little bit into the history.
When I came here, in 1993, there were suits all over the place.
And I thought, I'm going to call in the stakeholders, and I'm
going to call in the Secretary of the Interior, I'm going to
see if there's any way people can get out of the courtroom and
come around the table and begin to talk about water without the
emotion, but in a very practical solution-oriented manner. So
we held a number of meetings, and that kind of began a process
which became known as Calfed, whereby, at one point, I think
there were 17 different stakeholder groups sitting down and
meeting.
The Bay-Delta Accords were negotiated in 1994. And then, in
2000, the record of decision was carefully negotiated by all
groups--environmentalists, urbans, agriculture--was signed by
the Secretary of the Interior, and was signed by the Governor
of California.
This record of decision sets forth specific commitments to
enter into a process which will result in the balanced
implementation of the water interests of all California.
My bill adopts the record of decision as a framework for
Calfed's program components. This is compromise language. It
was negotiated at great length, and we need to keep its
recognition that the record of--the recognition that the record
of decision is our roadmap. Patrick Wright is here from
California, along with many others who will be introduced, and
they've done a terrific job.
Finally, a Calfed bill needs to create a governance
structure so that the Federal Government will participate
actively with the State in making important decisions. One
water project is federal, one water project is State. It makes
sense. So we need a governance structure to ensure an active
Federal role in the partnership.
So, I urge the administration and the House to support a
bill that increases our water supply, that also protects our
environment by proceeding in a balanced fashion. Let me quickly
just brief the elements of the bill.
The Chairman mentioned its $880 million authorization over
4 years. The Federal cost share is limited only to one third.
That's far below what most water bills have. This bill includes
$102 million for planning and feasibility studies, for water
storage, an additional $77 million for conveyance, $100 million
for ecological restoration. This means improving fish passages,
restoring streams, rivers, habitats, and water quality. The
evidence shows that Calfed's ecological restoration is working
well to date.
About $400 million has been spent to improve fish passages,
restore wetlands, and otherwise improve ecological restoration
since the 1990's. The results are the best part, and no one can
debunk it, fish populations are improving. We aren't all the
way there yet, but we've made real progress. $153 million for
water conservation, recycling, $84 million for desalination and
water cycling projects, programs to improve water quality for
drinking, $95 million for grants to local California
communities to develop plans and projects, and $50 million for
watershed planning and assistance. We have projects for levy
stability, with $70 million, ensuring Calfed has strong
supporting science; and $50 million and $25 million for program
management, oversight, and coordination. And, finally, $75
million for the environmental water account, which purchases
available water for environmental and other purposes.
Now, last Congress, I introduced a Calfed bill in November
2001, and I worked really hard with members of this committee
to get the bill favorably reported out of committee by a vote
of 18-5. I kept on working to address members' concerns, even
after the bill was reported. Senator Kyl helped me, on his
side, convening meetings, asking for concerns, vetting the
bill.
I'll tell you what we learned. First, some Senators were
afraid that Calfed was going to require more than its fair
share of the Bureau of Reclamation's budget. I think, Senator
Burns, you were one of those. We cut the authorization level
twice, ultimately to $880 million, to meet these concerns. We
also limited the Federal cost share.
A number of Republican Senators were concerned that
environmental projects not needing authorization would sail
smoothly ahead, while storage projects lacking congressional
approval would languish. To meet this concern, we require in
the bill specific language for balanced implementation of the
program. All aspects have to proceed in a balanced way.
Other Senators were concerned that they had no good handle
on the Federal funding on the numerous different agencies
involved in Calfed. We met this concern by requiring OMB to
prepare a crosscut budget showing the Federal funding of each
of the different agencies. There was concern, at the Bureau of
Reclamation, that we would short the projects for other States.
We also prepared a specific list of the projects to be funded
and how much each one would get. That's all there.
These changes improved the Calfed bill, and a simplified
short authorization passed the Senate at the very last minute,
at the very last half hour of the session. We could not,
however, get it passed in the House of Representatives. With
the support of Representative Calvert, with Representative
Pombo, I hope and expect we will achieve a different result.
And I had the opportunity, Madam Chairman, to talk a bit to
the Governor-elect of California about this. And I'd like to
quickly read in the record a letter from him. And it's, ``Dear
Senator Feinstein, As the Governor-elect, I'd like to express
my strong support for advancing Federal legislation on the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program. I strongly urge Congress to
reauthorize the Federal contribution to Calfed in order to
encourage the participating Federal agencies to fully engage in
a partnership with the State of California and the stakeholders
of the Calfed Program. I share your belief that Calfed can
provide a long-term comprehensive plan to address challenges in
the Bay-Delta region by balancing water-resource management
issues, including supply, quality, and ecosystem restoration.
I, therefore, support the efforts that you, Congressman
Calvert, and the entire California congressional delegation are
taking to help California implement this important program.''
I believe this is his first letter to us, and, as such, I
hope it indicates the importance of this Calfed Program to our
State.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. And I want to
congratulate Senator Feinstein. Nobody has devoted more hours
to this issue. And let me say that I sincerely appreciate what
they're trying to do in California, and I'm pretty supportive
of what they're trying to do. We voiced----
Senator Feinstein. Could you eliminate the ``pretty''?
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. Huh?
Senator Feinstein. Could you eliminate the ``pretty'' and
just be supportive?
Senator Burns. Um.
Senator Feinstein. I'm teasing.
Senator Burns. I thought you ladies liked the word
``pretty.''
Senator Feinstein. Well----
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. And I guess we still have the--almost the
same concerns, but I appreciate the movement that Senator
Feinstein has made with regard to the Calfed issue. Nobody
wants to argue that California does not need more water at the
south end of the State. I'm deeply concerned about and saddened
by what California is going through out there right now with
the fires and everything, but that has nothing to do with this.
I said, from the get-go, that Calfed was starting, kind of,
on the wrong end of their problem. They've got to make some
more water. They've got to come to the idea that we should
expand our ability to store water in the existing facilities,
and also maybe look at new facilities. I am supportive of that
because of population growth, of the people-pressure on water,
and also the ability to do some things on the environmental
side, without the cost being very, very heavy on the people-use
side.
And I also want to associate myself with the words of
Senator Feinstein, when Senator Kyl probably has been one of
the key players in these negotiations, understanding the
situation, and also understanding the law, as he does. The
Senate is very, very appreciative of his talent.
But I went through the 1991 water settlement with
California. I didn't sign the conference report then, because
it was unfair to, not only California, but also because
California played it pretty loose on who controls the water,
and I am very much of an opponent of the Federal Government,
Washington, D.C., controlling any water, because I don't want
to get into a situation where they dictate here what water will
be used for. And we fall on our saber about those things.
Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting, in the West.
So I want to congratulate Senator Feinstein because she has
come a long way. There are now conditions in here to enlarge
and to enhance water storage and to possibly create more water.
And while we might not create any more water, we're sure going
to hold it, and for the right reason. And not only for the
Delta, but also for agriculture. Because I come to this with
one single thing in my mind, and Senator Feinstein knows what
it is, and that is, I fight awfully hard to protect the
agricultural base, and I will continue to do that.
So I look forward to working on this piece of legislation.
I helped Senator Feinstein vote it out of committee last time,
and told her that we could work on it. And her word was good,
and we have been working on it. And I will continue to do that
in good faith. And I'm particularly appreciative of the work
that she's done and the miles that she has come on this piece
of legislation.
And I thank the Chair, and I'd ask that my official
statement be made a part of the record.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And your statement will be
included as part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator From Montana
First of all, I would like to thank Senator Murkowski for holding
this hearing, and Senator Feinstein for all her hard work on this
issue. Water in California, as with the entire West, is a complicated
and difficult issue.I would like to welcome the witnesses today,
particularly Tom Birmingham from Westlands Water District. The
importance of having an agricultural interest at the table cannot be
stressed enough.
There are people who wonder why I care so deeply about the
California farmers, but I have been close to this issue since the early
90's when the Senate passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
I never did sign the conference report, partly because the legislation
``reallocated'' 800,000 acre/feet of water away from South of the Delta
farmers. This bill seeks to get some of that water back, and I
appreciate that effort. To me, that is one of the key issues this
legislation needs to address.
Having been involved with the CalFed legislation for several years
now, I can say with confidence that S. 1097 is an improvement over
previous versions. I appreciate that the authorization has been trimmed
to $880 million over 5 years, and that there are efforts to make sure
that construction of new water storage projects progresses alongside
other water conservation and ecosystem projects. This balance is very
important to me, because water storage is crucial to meeting the
growing needs of any growing state. The fact that the federal cost-
share is limited to one-third of project costs is also an improvement.
For all its improvements, I am not ready to endorse this bill just
yet. Unanswered questions remain, and maybe we can answer some of those
questions in today's hearing. I think we need to make sure we are
authorizing activities that are necessary to achieve the goals of
better meeting the goals of the CalFed agreement. The follows a
``beneficiary pays'' model, and while that sounds good I am not sure
what it means. The American taxpayer will be paying for 1/3 of these
activities, and I am not clear on how the American taxpayer is a
beneficiary.
The federal government funds worthy projects in every state in the
nation, and CalFed projects may indeed be included in that list. I just
want to make sure we know what we're buying and that we can afford it.
I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Feinstein and my
other colleagues to make sure we are doing the right thing for all
Californians and for all Americans.
Murkowski. Senator Kyl.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Madam
Chairman, I'll just be very brief, but I want the people who
have traveled a long way to be here to appreciate some things.
I think probably most of you do.
When Senator Burns talked about the way that Senator
Feinstein has worked this legislation, he did not overstate the
case; he understated it. She is the best in the Senate at
buttonholing, lobbying, calling meetings, inundating you with
information, more than you want, and using every technique
known to man or woman to get people to see the light. And she
has just worked extraordinarily hard on this.
There are two other things that you all need to know--and,
by the way, the same thing goes for Ken Calvert, but he's not
getting the accolades here--but Senator Burns just said that
Senator Feinstein's word is good, and that probably is the best
thing that you all have going for you.
Because this is a project that, in one form or another,
and, I think, pretty close to the form that it's been
introduced, needs to happen. And it's going to be very hard,
because you come along at a time when we've got this big budget
deficit, and there were some other problems last year, and so
it's a hard thing--even though the project has a great deal of
merit, it's a hard thing to get done. And if you were working
with somebody here who was not trusted by their colleagues, it
would be very difficult. You have just the opposite here.
When Senator Feinstein sat down with me--we've had the same
thing in Arizona, these difficult negotiations with lawsuits
and all of the rest of it, and you finally have to sit down and
try to negotiate them out. And when you're all done the last
thing you want is to bring it back to Washington and have
everybody start to undermine what you did or to nitpick it to
death.
I fully appreciate that phenomenon and all the work that
you all put into this. But when Senator Feinstein said,
``Here's what we've done,'' I knew what the reaction of some
colleagues would be, and I suggested to Senator Feinstein that
she make several changes. She did. I know some of those were
kind of hard for some of you to swallow. But she was
extraordinarily constructive in putting this thing together in
a way that I could defend it, as a Senator from another State,
and I'm happy to do so, and happy to do it again.
So I will continue to work, to the extent that I can, with
Senator Feinstein. And I guess what I want you folks in
California to know is, please don't be disappointed. I know.
I've been through the same thing. I've got a thing going right
now myself here that we're going to have a long time to get
through. It's very frustrating, it's very time consuming. The
process here can be maddening. Don't give up. Keep of good
cheer. Be constructive. Keep educating us. That's what we need.
And be understanding of the financial issues, and we'll find a
way to work around all these problems.
Also, Bennett Raley and all the folks from the Department
of the Interior, have been enormously helpful here, too. So
there are a lot of good people of goodwill working on this.
It's hard. But with good, constructive work, we can try to get
this thing through.
And, Senator Feinstein, I commend you, and, Madam Chairman,
commend you for holding this hearing.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Has Congressman Calvert testified yet?
Senator Murkowski. He has not.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Senator Murkowski. We're still getting through our
openings.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I have a major keynote address here
that----
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. Let me--you know, I would second all that
my colleagues have said about Senator Feinstein. She's worked
tirelessly on this issue, and I'm happy to help her and work
with her. I know this is important to California.
And, you know, I would say that Senator Kyl made a very
important point. When you're dealing with water policy, you
have to have some patience. I mean, these are difficult
projects that require tireless devotion and dedication, and
this has proven to be the case with this project. But Senator
Feinstein has never given up, and so I think she has the
ability to work with the members of this committee in a way to
get a satisfactory result. I'm really happy to work with her. I
think she makes a complete and effective presentation, and has
done the groundwork that's necessary to get legislation
through.
Senator Feinstein, thank you for your work. And I, as the
ranking member of this subcommittee, look forward to working
with you to see if we can't get the results we need.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Byron.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
And, with that, let's turn to Congressman Calvert. Mr.
Calvert is the sponsor of H.R. 2828, which is the Calfed
legislation now moving through the House. So we welcome you to
the Committee. Thank you for your patience this afternoon as we
have made our opening comments.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I appreciate you having me here,
Madam Chairman. And thank you, Senator Dorgan and Senator Kyl,
Senator Burns, a good friend, Senator Feinstein, as I share my
thoughts on California water and the future of all
Californians. I certainly appreciate your having this hearing.
And I know that all of our thoughts and prayers are with
the people in southern California today who are going through a
difficult time. It seems that we have a number of problems in
California. A lack of energy and certainly these wildfires
aren't helpful. And water is a catastrophe waiting to happen in
California, as Senator Feinstein well knows in the hard work
that she has shown to resolve California's water issues. But
we're running out of time. So I know that patience is
important, but this is a very difficult problem.
I certainly want to share my appreciation of Senator
Feinstein's valiant strides in introducing her Calfed bill and
her efforts to find balanced solutions. As you're aware,
Senator, I based the structure of my bill, H.R. 2828, on the
purposes and intent of your bill. I believe your efforts today
will only strengthen the resolve to pass a Calfed bill this
session.
I've been working closely with my subcommittee colleagues
and stakeholders, and conducted field hearings in California
and hearings here in Washington, to gain an understanding of
what is right for California water.
What I've heard, across the board, is that we need storage,
as Senator Burns points out, we need efficient conveyance, we
need improved water quality, we need more agency
accountability, and we need strong communication and
coordination. Your efforts here today provide all members the
opportunity to see what is working and what minor improvements
to the California water system are needed to assure that more
than 35 million people continue to have an adequate and a safe
water supply. As Senator Feinstein points out, that population
continues to increase.
I also believe that your bill provides other water managers
and other States and river basins an opportunity to see a
system that is working and, with our legislation, will be a
balance to all water users.
Our bills are close. I'm confident that the differences can
be resolved. I commit to work with you, Senator, and the
distinguished members of this committee and the subcommittee I
chair, to work out what few differences we do have so we can
get the needed Federal authorization that's been so lacking in
the last decade.
You know, in a last point, a lot of the hard work that
Bennett Raley and certainly others have put into this, the
Quantification Settlement Agreement has been resolved. That's
good news. Now the hard work begins. We have a few years,
really, to wean ourselves from the Colorado River. And without
Calfed, we can't do it. We must have this.
Obviously, desalinization is an important issue, and there
are other issues, but unless we can move water from the north
to the south in the good times, we're not going to be able to
meet the goals that we must meet. And, as you all know,
especially from Arizona and Nevada and other States, water is a
fungible commodity, and the lack of water has a direct cost on
price, and price is certainly something that's very important
to farmers, as you know, Senator Burns. And so as the scarcity
of water increases, the price of water increases with it.
So, with that, again, I'm thankful for having this
opportunity to be here. And if you have any questions, I'd be
happy to answer them, though they just called a vote and I have
to get back over to the House.
So thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we don't want to keep you from
your vote. Let me just ask you very quickly, looking into your
crystal ball, what do you figure the prospect of Calfed
legislation passing the House is?
Mr. Calvert. I'm very confident we will pass a bill out of
committee soon--soon being when we come back into session--and
get a bill on the floor. We came very close last session, and I
feel confident that we can get a bill passed. But, you know,
it's--this catastrophe that's happened in California the last
few days shows that we cannot put off problems. We have to deal
with them early on and be proactive in these types of things,
and especially water. You can't put off water problems, because
when it's upon you, you can't solve it overnight.
Senator Murkowski. Are there questions for Congressman
Calvert?
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. If I may, I'd like to thank him. I
happened to agree with what he said. I believe that if we each
get a bill through our respective houses, we'll be able to work
out any differences that exist in conference and get the job
done in a way that I think everybody would be proud. There are
controversies. We've worked to solve them. So I would be very
optimistic, and I want to thank you very much, Ken, for coming
over today.
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you Senator. I appreciate it.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I look forward to working with you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Anything from any other committee members? If not, thank
you for your time this afternoon, Congressman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate it.
I just wanted to note for the record, Senator Domenici was
planning on attending the hearing today, but was called away to
an Energy and Water Appropriations conference meeting. The
chairman has asked that his prepared statements be included in
the record. But he did want to have me pass on to you, Senator
Feinstein, his commendation for all the hard work that you have
been doing on this issue and his desire to continue to work
with you as we move forward.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
Madam Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today on S.
1097, the CalFed Bay-Delta authorization legislation.
I would like to commend my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for her
efforts to deal with these critical water issues in California. She has
been persistent in bringing water management issues to the front of the
national agenda. I would also like to thank Senator Feinstein for her
willingness to engage in bi-partisan efforts to carry forward the
business of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The significant water issues highlighted by this CALFED legislation
are not unique to California. For example, we have recently held a
hearing on legislation addressing major water issues in Arizona. Other
members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have equally
pressing water resources issues.
My state, New Mexico, struggled through a disastrous summer
requiring Herculean efforts by Federal, State and every other water
management group. We have now reduced our storage to historic lows and
we face potentially traumatic choices this coming year. If anything,
New Mexico has fewer resources and is in worse shape than California.
For these reasons, I am developing legislation to address the
breadth of water issues faced by my state. For lack of a better name, I
have been referring to this legislation as New Mexico FED.
I look forward to working to resolve the remaining issues on S.
1097, and equally important, I took forward to working with Senator
Feinstein and my other colleagues on the Committee to address the water
issues that face New Mexico and the rest of the Western U.S.
Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for conducting this hearing today.
Appendage
Additionally, I feel that CALFED is increasingly significant in
light of the recent historic agreement among the U.S. Department of the
Interior, the Colorado Basin States and in particular, the users of
Colorado River water in California in an effort to reduce California's
dependence on Colorado River Water.
The CalFed program was first initiated almost 10 years ago with the
signing of the Bay-Delta accord in 1994. The parties who have worked
long and hard in developing and managing the highly integrated and
interdependent projects of the CalFed program should be commended.
Every Western state, if it has not already done so, should pay close
attention and where possible, learn from California's experience in
this effort.
The collaborative process leading to the Bay-Delta Record of
Decision and this legislation sets the stage for the long-term Federal-
State relationship in California and establishes a possible formula for
other Western states.
However, I have several concerns, which I hope will be addressed in
part at this hearing and which may require that I travel to California
to see first hand the programs and facilities represented by this
legislation.
While the list of projects and programs addressed in this
legislation are extensive, S. 1097 does not solve ALL of California's
water resources issues. Since the Committee announced this hearing, I
have met with multiple organizations from California who have sought my
support for CalFed. My staff and I have also met with other California-
based groups who feel their projects should receive equal attention to
those included in CalFed. Notably, the current CalFed legislation
represents only four years of the Federal-State partnership. Thus, it
is important, that the Committee understand what California water
issues are resolved by the CalFed legislation and what additional
authorization requests the Committee should anticipate for other
California water projects.
A major question on S. 1097 is whether new authorities are needed
to implement the Federal-State relationship or whether existing
authorities are sufficient. This is a key issue in developing Western
water policy. I hope that today's hearing and subsequent discussions
will help increase my understanding of the Federal government's
existing authorities to address complex water issues and lay a
foundation for assessing the right course of action on water issues for
other states, like New Mexico.
As has been discussed before, every state in the West is facing the
same water trauma. Recently, this committee conducted a hearing on
water settlements and other projects in Arizona. As many of you know, I
am currently in the process of developing broad-reaching water
legislation for New Mexico. Thus, the policy and other implications of
the CalFed legislation must be viewed in light of these broader Western
needs.
Finally, I want to commend my colleague from California, Senator
Feinstein, for her hard work on S. 1097. Again, thank you Madam
Chairman for taking on these weighty issues.
Senator Murkowski. Let's go to panel No. 2. I'd like to now
welcome Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley, who is testifying on
behalf of the Administration.
Mr. Raley, thank you for joining us this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER
AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Raley. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for
providing us with the opportunity to address this
extraordinarily important issue for the Department of the
Interior and, in fact, the United States.
The resources at issue in the State of California are of
national importance. It's a nationally important economy,
nationally important environmental and other resources. And
like the other States, we believe that it is only with the
relentless attention and support of all of the people here in
this body, as well as the administration, that we'll enable
people out on the ground, at the State and local level, to find
the tools to resolve what will otherwise be an unending series
of catastrophes.
Senator Feinstein spoke, in her opening remarks, of finding
this a--if I could use the word--a morass of litigation. And,
if I may, I can say it no more plainly than that this
administration believes that solutions like Calfed are
absolutely critical to avoiding unending series of
catastrophes. In fact, you can look at Secretary Norton's Water
2025 Initiative, which the Secretary announced this spring and
completed regional hearings on throughout the West this summer,
over 3,000 people attended these hearings in the West to talk
about common-sense solutions to avoiding, or at least
minimizing, conflict over water. We drew heavily upon Calfed,
and the successes and failures in Calfed, in terms of it being
an experiment in size and in its scale, as the Secretary
developed Water 2025.
We do not want to deal with a future that does not include
a Calfed authorization. And I will be blunt, there is virtually
nothing that I can disagree with in Senator Feinstein's opening
remarks, with the minor exception that we may have different
perspectives on the amount of money that is currently available
at this time within the President's budget. That's something
that I suspect will be discussed within this body, and the
executive branch will make its preferences known. But the
goals, the objectives, and the relentless search for resolution
of tough issues that Senator Feinstein spoke of, we agree with
much of what she and all of you have done together.
I also want to thank, on behalf of the Secretary, Senator
Feinstein for noting the success of the Secretary, the four
water-management agencies, and the seven States on the Colorado
River. And we know that that could not have occurred without
the support of members of this subcommittee in searching for a
long-term durable solution.
There is very much a connection between the long-term
success, with respect to the California plan for the Colorado
River, and Calfed. As Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, Senator
Burns, and, I believe, all observed, in one way or another,
that if California is to meet its needs from a water-use
standpoint, from an environmental standpoint, from a
recreational standpoint, for water as its population grows, we
must have Calfed, because the only other alternative will be
the decimation of agricultural communities that we do not
believe should bear disproportionate burdens within California
as it struggles to meet the challenges of a population that I
saw the other day, L.A. growing something like 800 people per
day.
And so, without reservation, we're supportive of the
concepts of Calfed. We believe that, with the exception of what
I consider to be fairly technical matters that I've noted in my
opening statement--which, Madam Chairman, I'd like to request
be submitted for the record--that success is attainable. And if
I can borrow a term that we used at some risk in the Colorado
River negotiations, I do believe that we are achingly close.
With the leadership of the Senators of this subcommittee, Mr.
Calvert, and Mr. Pombo, in the House, we are achingly close to
concluding this chapter in the long story of enabling
California to meet the needs of its people and its resources.
With that, Madam Chairman, I'd like to just refer to my
written statement and leave whatever time may be available for
questions from the Senators.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, and your written comments
will be included as part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bennett W. Raley, Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science, Department of the Interior
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed bill
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to implement the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program. S. 1097 provides authorization for the Secretary of the
Interior and the heads of the participating Federal agencies to carry
out implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the
Record of Decision. Furthermore, S. 1097 would authorize funding, as
well as governance and management authorities for a comprehensive,
balanced, and timely water management program for California.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Committee
for your continued support and commitment to making significant
progress with the CALFED Program. I also appreciate the concerns
demonstrated by this Committee that progress be made and your efforts
in developing the bill being considered here before us today. Your
continued willingness to work with the Administration and Department on
this matter is of real and continuing importance to us. The current
bill addresses many of the concerns raised in previous testimony, and
we appreciate the approach the Senate is taking to authorize a clean
CALFED bill. While we appreciate the effort and commitment that has
gone into this bill, this testimony highlights several outstanding
concerns that will need to be addressed for the Administration to
support this legislation.
OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS ON CALIFORNIA WATER ISSUES
Before addressing S. 1097, I would like to briefly focus on several
key California water issues and provide you with an overview of CALFED
accomplishments to date. Virtually every Western state has issues of
concern and controversy demanding our collective attention. The
Department of the Interior has recently initiated Water 2025 which is a
commitment to work with states, tribes, local governments, and the
public, within existing resources, to address the realities of water
supply challenges in the West. Water 2025 recognizes crisis management
is not an effective solution for addressing long-term systemic water
supply problems. This effort is intended to focus sustained attention
on measures that local communities can be put in place to proactively
anticipate and mitigate the water conflicts we will otherwise
inevitably experience, even in non-drought years. In some areas of the
West, communities are already implementing water banks, voluntary
transfers between existing users, and water conservation measures to
address potential water supply crises in advance.
COLORADO RIVER WATER DELIVERY AGREEMENT
A prime example of crisis prevention is the recent conclusion of
decades of controversy with the signing of the Colorado River Water
Delivery Agreement. On October 16, 2003, Secretary Norton was joined at
Hoover Dam by representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
and the four California water agencies (Imperial Irrigation District,
Coachella Valley Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California and the San Diego County Water Authority), to
celebrate this historic agreement that allows for the largest ``ag to
urban'' transfer in the West. This agreement, forged under the
Secretary's leadership resolves important issues that were of
significant concern to many in the West and in Congress.
By executing this pact, California will keep its 1929 promise to
limit its use of Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre-feet by
adopting specific, incremental steps to gradually reduce its use over
the next 14 years. This Agreement includes measures that provide water
for San Diego and its other growing cities in the southern half of the
state, which are dependent on additional water conservation within
California's farming communities. Under recently enacted state
legislation, California will develop strategies to address the
environmental concerns of the Salton Sea.
The California water management agencies have agreed among
themselves as to how California's 4.4 million acre-feet will be
allocated within the state. Reaching this agreement benefits not only
California, but also the seven states in the Colorado River Basin,
allowing them to protect their authorized allocations and meet their
future water needs.
The key elements of the deal are:
1. Caps previously unquantified water entitlement of the
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and Coachella Valley Water
District.
2. Provides for the conservation and transfer of up to
277,700 acre-feet from IID to the San Diego County Water
Authority.
3. Resolves longstanding disputes over the beneficial use of
Colorado River water.
4. Reinstates the availability of Colorado River surplus
water for California and Nevada urban water users, providing
for a 14 year gradual reduction to California's allocated share
of Colorado River water (a reduction from 5.2 to 4.4 million
acre-feet).
5. Provides water and wheeling arrangements for settlement of
the San Luis Rey River Indian Tribes.
This is a historic Agreement that settles longstanding disputes
regarding the allocation of Colorado River water within California that
have been in dispute since 1931. This Agreement provides several
immediate and long-term benefits to the beneficiaries of the Colorado
River, such as:
1. The fundamental principal of the Law of the Colorado River is
upheld in this Agreement: Legal allocations to each state must be
respected and enforced. In the past commentators and others within the
Basin have suggested that transfers of additional water from the Upper
Basin's allocation to California would be the best approach to resolve
problems associated with California's overuse of the River. That
approach would have been inconsistent with the basic structure and the
allocations to each basin as provided in the Colorado River Compact of
1922. The Department does not believe that undermining the certainty of
the allocations established over the past century would solve problems
within the Basin; rather, such an approach would lead to a prolonged
period of uncertainty and instability for all water users within the
Basin. As a recent editorial in Utah stated: ``By firming up the water-
rights issue, California will have to adhere to its fair share of water
from the Colorado River.''
2. Through this Agreement, California has taken concrete steps to
honor the commitment its legislature made in 1929 to live within an
allocation of 4.4 MAF from the Colorado River. As a result,
reinstatement of the Interim Surplus Guidelines, will once again allow
California to have a grace period to reduce its use to 4.4 MAF. This
will allow California to better plan and implement water conservation
activities in a manner that avoids adverse impacts to its economy.
3. Reduction in water use by California directly reduces demand on
water stored in Colorado River reservoirs thereby reducing the risk of
future shortages on the River. Arizona, with the most junior priority
in the lower Basin, is particularly at risk of future shortages, and we
are currently experiencing historic drought in the Basin.
4. This Agreement is a resounding endorsement of the role of the
Basin States to collectively fashion new approaches to solve issues
within the Basin. The success of this Agreement builds on the Seven
Basin States' consensus plan that was ultimately adopted by the
Department as the Interim Surplus Guidelines. Secretary Norton chose to
live by, and enforce, the deadlines that were agreed to by all seven
Basin States. This Agreement honors and respects the agreements and
obligations among the states that were incorporated in the Interim
Surplus Guidelines.
5. Lastly, bringing Southern California's water use into alignment
with its allocation from the Colorado will also help reduce pressures
on supplies from Northern California. As we saw earlier this year, the
reduction in available Colorado River supplies to MWD lead to
additional transfers from Northern California. The agreements reached
on quantification of agricultural allocations in the Colorado River
Water Delivery Agreement will provide a framework for additional
transfers in the future.
President Bush summarized these benefits in his statement of
October 16: ``this Agreement allows the Colorado River to meet emerging
water needs and provides certainty for the people of the Basin
States.''
CALFED
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is also an example of crisis
prevention. The CALFED Program is a response to the water management
and ecosystem problems that came so clearly into focus in the drought
of 1987 to 1992 experienced within the Bay-Delta system. Furthermore,
the historic and ongoing conflicts between water management for supply
and fishery protection have given rise to the urgency of the CALFED
Program. For more than 7 years the collaborative State-Federal CALFED
Program has been searching for the equilibrium among the Delta's
complex problems and stakeholders with divergent interests.
Since Secretary Norton last appeared before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee in July 2001 on the CALFED Program, much
has been achieved in California water issues through the implementation
of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I have attached to my statement a
description of the accomplishments the program has achieved in years
one through three. A collective investment of approximately $1.925
billion has been made in Years 1 through 3 from numerous Federal, state
and local funding sources which has attributed to a vast array of
project accomplishments in the program areas of water supply
reliability, drinking water quality, levees, ecosystem restoration,
watershed, science and oversight and coordination. Of the $1.925
billion, $1,204 million was state funding, $491 million was local
funding and $230 million was Federal funding. The Federal investment
for all directly related and overlapping programs and projects that
contribute to achieving the CALFED ROD objectives within and
overlapping the geographic solution area is a total of $600 million.
RECENT CALFED DEVELOPMENTS
State Established California Bay-Delta Authority
The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) was established by State
legislation enacted in 2002 to provide a permanent State governance
structure for the collaborative State-Federal effort that began in
1994. Pursuant to that legislation which was effective January 1, 2003,
the CBDA formally assumed responsibility for overseeing State
implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The legislation calls
for the CBDA to sunset on January 1, 2006, unless Federal legislation
has been enacted authorizing the participation of appropriate Federal
agencies in the CBDA. Currently Federal agencies are participating with
the CBDA and have engaged with their State CALFED partner agencies in
the first two meetings.
Interior and other Federal agencies involved with CALFED are
discussing among themselves and with CBDA how our interaction with this
new entity will evolve. As this is a unique intergovernmental
arrangement, there are no prototypes to examine and from which to
learn. We are proceeding cautiously in our examination of the many
legal and institutional issues that have been identified.
Renewed Agreements
The California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee Charter was
renewed in August under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The renewal
of the Charter allows the Committee to continue to provide
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of
California, and the 24 Federal and State CALFED cooperating agencies on
Program implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Our
participation under the MOU has advanced the Program's implementation
through the coordinated planning, scheduling, and budgeting for
programs and projects.
Establishment of D.C. Level Federal-Agency Coordination Working Group
The Department of the Interior as the lead Federal Agency for
CALFED Program implementation has established a Washington-Level
Working Group consisting of a representative liaison from each of the
11 Federal participating agencies. This group will meet on a regular
basis to facilitate coordinated support at the Washington level for
each of the participating agencies. The group will focus on providing
the higher level support and coordination needed by the 11 Federal
agencies for Program implementation.
Napa Proposition
The Napa Proposition is a process to develop feasible plans to
implement key actions contained in the CALFED ROD. The primary
objective of the initial Napa discussions was to develop a proposal for
the integration of the State Water Project (SWP) and the Federal
Central Valley Project (CVP) in a manner that is consistent with the
spirit and intent of the CALFED ROD. The proposition was developed
during meetings that were a continuation of an ongoing relationship
between the project agencies and their contractors to ensure better
coordination of the day-to-day operations of both projects.
The proposition is expected to increase moderately supplies for
both projects. By better managing risk, it will allow higher
allocations earlier in the year, increasing certainty for both CVP and
SWP contractors. Most importantly, the proposition sets the stage for
implementation of key CALFED programs, including increasing pumping
capacity at the SWP Banks Pumping Plant to 8,500 cfs and continuation
of the Environmental Water Account. It also recognizes the fundamental
CALFED objective of improving Delta water quality.
I would emphasize that the Napa Proposition is only a
recommendation at this time and that no final decisions have been made.
This recommendation will be considered through a more formal decision-
making process described in the CALFED ROD, including various
stakeholders and public review activities.
Integration of Water Planning--CA Water Plan Update, Water 2025 and
Bay-Delta Program
The State has just issued a Draft Update of the California Water
Plan which proposes a set of water resource actions to meet future
water needs. One central theme that is consistent across the Water
Plan, Water 2025, and the Bay-Delta Program is the need to pursue
regional and local water development as a critical element to help
determine priorities and demand. All three programs call for
coordinated and integrated planning for determining future projects,
approaches, or strategies for addressing future water needs. With
respect to Water 2025, Secretary Norton has stated that the CALFED
Program is a perfect example of how agencies and stakeholders can
effectively work together towards a common goal.
Re-evaluation of Program Budgets & Targets
Since the signing the Bay-Delta Programmatic ROD in 2000, financial
conditions have changed, and the implementing Federal and State
agencies, as well as Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee and the CBDA,
have concluded that it is time to reassess and develop a strategic plan
for the near-term implementation of the Program. The CBDA recently
directed its staff to reassess the Program which will include a review
of the targets and budgets necessary to meet Program goals specified in
the ROD. The reassessment will make recommendations on replacing
original monetary targets with performance-oriented targets as they are
developed. Careful consideration will also be given to Program
implementation that can be fully funded in the current fiscal climate;
program implementation must be firmly based upon realistic expectations
regarding actual appropriations. Failure to develop affordable CALFED
Program components may jeopardize the progress of a balanced CALFED
Program.
A CALFED Finance Plan is being developed to enable the Program to
continue implementation in a balanced manner. The Draft Finance Options
Report will develop finance options for each of the CALFED Program
elements based on an evaluation of benefits, beneficiaries, and costs.
A Final Finance Options Report will propose a final set of finance
options, including the institutional structure to implement a finance
plan. An Independent Review Panel (8 nationally recognized experts) has
been established to review and comment on each of these reports.
Let me now turn to the legislation before us. In order to support
the Federal component of the reevaluated Program, it is important that
appropriate legislation be enacted to authorize Federal Government
participation.
FEINSTEIN LEGISLATION
This legislation represents a comprehensive approach to water
issues in California. The bill proposes the commitments made in the
2000 Record of Decision as the road map for implementation of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and respects past agreements Californians have
made by representing compromise language negotiated at great length.
In general, however, the bill addresses a larger authorization
package than may be required by the 11 Federal agencies to implement
and participate in the Record of Decision actions. Our Federal agencies
have been able to rely on over fifty existing authorities (passed by
Congress) that continue to enable Federal agency participation. We are
submitting for the record a detailed matrix of those existing
authorities. The key areas in which additional authorization is
necessary are as follows:
Environmental Water Account (EWA)--While the bill provides
authority and participation for EWA program activities for the period
years 4-7, we believe that the bill should authorize implementation of
a long-term EWA in a fashion that supports the vision and flexibility
envisioned in the ROD. The establishment and successful operation of a
long-term EWA will be one of the most significant accomplishments of
CALFED in reducing the conflicts between fisheries and water project
operators.
Levee Stability Program--The goal of the Levee System Integrity
Program is to provide long-term protection for multiple Delta resources
by maintaining and improving the integrity of the extensive Delta
levees system. Authorization for feasibility study for risk assessment
strategy, Delta Emergency management plan, dredged material reuse on
Delta Islands, and best management practices to control and reverse
land subsidence is needed as noted in the ROD.
Implement Conveyance Program Elements--Authorization is needed for
feasibility studies for the increased pumping to 10,300 cfs at H. O.
Banks Pumping Plant, fish screen and intake at Clifton Court, and San
Luis Reservoir Low Point Project.
Ecosystem Restoration Program Financial Assistance--Authorization
is needed to carry out the Ecosystem Restoration Program activities
through the use of grants and cooperative agreements with non-Federal
entities
Cross-Cut Appropriation--Finally, Interior supports the concept of
a cross-cut appropriation as delineated in the proposed bill which we
believe will reduce inefficiencies and further improve Federal agency
participation and recognition of implementation requirements. A cross-
cut appropriation would more accurately reflect the contributions of
the participating Federal agencies and lessen the risk to other
Reclamation funded programs and projects in the Western states.
Additional Concerns--The Administration has several specific
concerns with the proposed legislation.
As mentioned, appropriations are unlikely to approach the
$880 million envisioned for Stage 1. Balanced progress in the
program can only be achieved with a realistic expectation of
CALFED appropriations.
Section 3 (C, iii): While the Administration supports
improvements in Water Use Efficiency, this section references
two studies that the Administration has not yet cleared. We
cannot support legislation that codifies any studies that have
not finished Administration review. Similarly, Sec. 3(C, iii,
II) directs the Secretary to review any seawater desalination
and regional brine line feasibility studies, regardless of the
lack of prior Department involvement in those studies. Such
studies are generally not conducted with the best interests of
the taxpayer in mind, and should under no circumstances be
adopted by either the Administration or Congress without being
subjected to the same scrutiny that applies to federally-
sponsored studies.
The legislation presumes authorization of storage projects
that are only now in the early phases of feasibility studies;
if those projects are not pursued beyond the feasibility study
stage, for whatever reason, it could indicate that CALFED
implementation is out of balance; however, the legislation
offers no alternate path for getting implementation back in
balance. CALFED should identify alternate paths for achieving
the outcomes of the storage component (as well as other
components) of the program.
The Administration is concerned that the bill gives blanket
authorization to projects that have not undergone the normal
process of Executive Branch review. Completing this review
process for all federal projects is crucial to ensure that the
projects are in the national interest and appropriately address
the problems facing the Bay Delta.
Section 5 (e) and Section 6 (a) duplicate one another to a
large extent; reporting requirements could be integrated and
streamlined by requiring a single budget crosscut.
Section 6 (a): There are Constitutional concerns regarding
this section; Congress cannot direct what the President
includes in his budget requests. The Department of Justice has
provided alternate language that we plan to share with the
Committee.
CONCLUSION
The CALFED Program is truly at a critical juncture. After years of
planning, the Program is now moving into the strategic implementation
of key program and project activities. This forward momentum has been
invigorated recently by the resolution of California's use of Colorado
River water, the Napa Proposition's recommendations on coordinated
operations of the CVP and SWP, and the implementing CALFED agencies'
commitments to re-evaluate the CALFED Program. I strongly believe that
re-evaluation of the Program with a focus on developing affordable
component actions that create a durable and balanced solution to
continuous improvement in water supply, water quality and the
environment will best serve the interests of all Californians. These
objectives are within our reach.
The Administration is encouraged by the accomplishments to date
under the CALFED Program. Your support of the CALFED Program through
enactment of pertinent authorizing legislation and associated funding
for the participating Federal agencies is fundamental to continuing
Federal implementation efforts under the Program. Through Federal,
State, and public collaborative implementing efforts, progress has been
made in improving water supply reliability and the ecological health of
the Bay-Delta Estuary. By working together, we are putting programs
into action that I believe will lead to the realization of the long
term benefits and expectations of the CALFED Program.
This concludes my testimony. Madam Chairman, I would like to
reiterate my appreciation to the Subcommittee and others for continuing
to work with the Administration to address the significant water issues
facing California. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Attachments:*
1. CALFED Accomplishments for Years 1 through 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Federal Authorities for ROD and Related
Activities
Senator Murkowski. You have suggested that perhaps the $880
million authorization in S. 1097 is not a realistic
expectation. If, in fact, you do not consider that to be a
realistic expectation of the Calfed appropriations, what would
you consider to be an amount that is realistic?
Mr. Raley. A fair question, Senator, and I do not have an
answer for that. We are just highlighting that, in light of
budget pressures that Senator Kyl referenced, that--and without
necessarily in any way disagreeing with Senator Feinstein's
accounting of the history of how this has been pared back and
pared back, it may not be that the full $880 million is
available.
Our goal is to make the most appropriate and efficient use
to achieve the principles that were articulated by Senator
Feinstein of the Calfed balance and integration at the local
level, et cetera, with whatever resources are available. We
want Calfed to be scalable--in other words, that it moves
forward in a meaningful and productive path with whatever
resources are made available as a part of the budgeting
process. But I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, I do not have a number
to provide to you.
Senator Murkowski. I guess I probably would have been
surprised if you had, but I needed to ask the question.
Mr. Raley. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. In your written comments, you discussed
the authority that the Federal Government already has to
undertake Calfed Program activities. Could you explain what
they already have and, in your opinion, what authorities the
Federal Government lacks.
Mr. Raley. Well, as I recall, we rely on some 50,
approximately, acts of Congress that--to support or authorize
various aspects of the activities that are within Calfed, writ
large, which includes both category A and category B
expenditures.
We believe that there are four areas for which additional
authority would be appropriate. And so that I do not mistake
them, if you'll allow me to turn to find those four in my
testimony----
They are: additional authority with respect to a long-term
environmental water account, additional authority with respect
to levy stabilization efforts, additional authority for
conveyance project feasibility studies, and ecosystem system
restoration grant-making. Those are four areas where we believe
existing authorities are not adequate to support what is
clearly going to be a part--or needed as a part of Calfed,
moving forward. By listing those, we are not in any way
implying that--a lack of support for the Calfed authorization
that is the focus of Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer's bill
in this body, and Congressman Calvert and his colleagues over
in the House.
We would far prefer that there be the programmatic
authorization for Calfed that Senator Feinstein and her
colleagues have been working on for so long, because it will
provide the unity, if you will, the cohesiveness, the crosscut
budget, and many other advantages to reaching success that we
simply won't have if we are forced to move forward, as we have
over the last three years, on a piecemeal basis, reaching and
pulling from I think it's 50 different authorities.
Senator Murkowski. How much is currently being spent on
activities that could be identified as consistent with the
program components that are identified through the Calfed
legislation?
Mr. Raley. Madam Chairman, I believe it's slightly under $2
billion over years one through three. I recognize the bulk of
that came from State and local sources, and that, as I recall,
the Federal contributions over those 3 years is something like
$230 million. Now, within categories A and B of Calfed
expenditures, there are expenditures that virtually everyone
agrees move forward on the Calfed objectives. There are others
in category B that have greater or lesser degrees of direct
relevance to the principles of Calfed, so it's difficult, in
light of the significant scope of Federal activities in
California, to draw the line at a precise place. So our
assessment was, where it's been, over years one through three,
under $2 billion, and $230 million of that being Federal.
Senator Murkowski. And then one last question. Again, in
your written comments, you note that the legislation presumes
authorization of storage projects that may not be authorized
after additional studies are completed. And you state in the
testimony, that, ``Calfed should identify alternative paths--
alternate paths for achieving the outcomes of the storage
component of the program.'' So do you have any suggestions as
to how the storage component of the program can best be
achieved?
Mr. Raley. The Secretary believes that the storage
component of the program can best be achieved by pursuing the
path that Senator Feinstein, Senator Burns, Senator Kyl, and
all of you have talked about. We are very supportive of that.
The reference in my testimony is a recognition of the reality
that as projects go through the NEPA process, we will have to
look at all alternatives for achieving a particular goal. And,
you know, we can't be pre-decisional, in terms of which one we
might implement.
On the other hand, the Secretary has joined with Senator
Feinstein and others, and applauds her for recognizing that
with the explosive population growth in California, unless
other important sectors--whether it be agriculture, the
environment, others--are, sort of, thrown overboard, which is
not good public policy and not going to happen, the pie will
have to be expanded.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate your answers.
We'll next move to Senator Feinstein. For the information
of those present, we have been called to a vote on an
amendment, and I understand that they're cutting us off at 20
minutes, so you'll be seeing us coming and going throughout
this hearing.
So, Senator Feinstein, if you would care to ask your
questions?
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Let me thank you for your testimony, Mr. Raley. Your
comments on storage surprised me a little bit, because there's
no way of knowing about a storage project until you do the
feasibility studies on it. And I guess the four connected--
Raising Shasta, Los Vaqueros, for water quality, the Upper San
Joaquin, and Sites. Now, some of those probably will be more
positive than others, but you can't tell without doing the
feasibility. Are you saying that we should not proceed to do
those feasibility studies?
Mr. Raley. No. I apologize if that's the inference. That
was not the intent. We just simply were looking to, ultimately,
the selection of what alternatives would be implemented. We are
very supportive of the approach that you've adopted, in terms
of proceeding with feasibility analyses for storage.
Senator Feinstein. See, I mean, this always remains an area
of controversy, but, I mean, I've lived in California all my
life. I've seen its growth. And, you look at how people use
water, and you see very practical things. And, you know, I'm
one that believes in conservation. It's kind of interesting, in
some respects there is more conservation in the North than
there is in the South in a lot of areas. You know, there are
dry lawns, people don't water, everything is conserved, et
cetera. But I've become convinced that you really can't solve
the problem unless you're better able to take water from the
wet years and hold it for the dry years, because nothing we do,
if the planet is getting warmer, is really going to remove that
need for storing water. And I'd be very happy to, you know, sit
down and work that out with you.
I also think, you know, clearly you've sent us a message
from OMB, and OMB has said, I guess, that $880 million is
unlikely to be available over the next 4 years. So then the
question becomes, What do we do about it? Do we lengthen the
years? Do we cut the gross amount? And based on what? And I
mentioned this very briefly to Mr. Wright, who's sitting
directly behind you. And I would hope that within the next
couple of weeks you might get together with him and might come
up with a program that is fundable, that the administration is
willing to make a commitment to.
The reason I say this is because, you might guess, from my
perspective there's some degree of frustration. You know, I've
tried to listen to everybody, I've tried to take what they have
into consideration, just keep changing and changing. And we've
got to get momentum. We've got to move this bill.
Mr. Raley. Senator, I understand your frustration and think
you're being quite gentle in expressing it. We will work
together with all stakeholders in California. I can assure you
that within the administration there is serious attention given
to this legislation, as well as its counterparts in the House.
And I do believe, without being able to predict what the number
is, all the issues are resolvable. We are achingly close to--to
borrow the term from the Colorado River fights about 3 months
ago, achingly close to success, and we want to get there.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you this last question,
and then I've got to recess the committee and go and vote. Give
me a length of time that we can solve these questions--in
weeks, not months--because then I'm going to hold you to it.
Mr. Raley. That's why I'm taking my time in answering.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Raley. Could I complete that answer upon your return
from voting?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, you may.
Mr. Raley. Okay, thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
And we'll recess the committee for the time being. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. We're back on the record.
And before we were interrupted by that vote, I believe, Senator
Feinstein, you were asking Mr. Raley some questions. And if you
wanted to complete your round of questioning, that would be
appropriate at this time.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Raley is going to come forth with pearls of wisdom as
to when we might be able to have an answer with respect to a
commitment from the administration on funding, how much, over
what period of years.
Mr. Raley. Senator, I hoped that you had been distracted by
other matters in the vote and would not remember the question
that was posed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Raley. But I didn't expect that to be the case. I
cannot give you a number today. That is above my pay grade, and
I don't want to pretend. In talking to Patrick Wright, I
believe that the Calfed process can go back and come up with
numbers that Calfed, and particularly the Calfed Bay-Delta
Authority, the State agency, believe are appropriate for
funding amounts in the, sort of, near to medium term.
What I can do, in terms of commitments, Senator, with
respect to working out the issues, is commit that on the
substantive issues, we will meet with your staff--and I know
them to be reasonable, and I mean that--meet with your staff as
soon as you wish, and we will meet with them until we either
resolve things or distill down the issues to ones that we
cannot, at our level, resolve. I'll commit to doing that, you
know, starting next week.
Senator Feinstein. I think that would be excellent. We'll
take you up on it.
Mr. Raley. All right.
Senator Feinstein. And let me quickly ask one other
question. The recycling projects, the studies that Interior has
been sitting on--your eyes are closed--and then saying that you
cannot move forward on them? Why can you not move forward on
them?
Mr. Raley. Senator, you're again being gentle. The reason
my eyes were closed is that I had thought that I was through
being embarrassed about one in particular of those studies. The
study on recycling in southern California--I take
responsibility. The reason I'm looking pained is that I told
Congressman Napolitano, several weeks ago, that I thought that
that had been mailed out to the people that had paid for it so
that they could review the current draft. I later found out
that I was wrong, that because the people who were working on
that had been pulled off to another issue, it hadn't actually
gone out, and I've been remiss in not calling Congressman
Napolitano to tell her that it hadn't gone out.
But I will go back and find out if it's gone out today. And
if it hasn't gone out, I will personally commit to you that it
will go out by close of business Friday in whatever form it's
in.
The delay for the last 2 years on that study is my
responsibility. The version that I saw was--the study was
gibberish. The executive summary was 30 pages. It was not until
something like page 28 that there were cost-per-acre-foot
numbers. I could not tell, from reading the executive summary,
exactly the message they were trying to communicate to the
administration or to members of Congress.
My charge was, go back--if we're talking about the same
study, Senator--write it in English, take out the internally
inconsistent matters, do not touch the analysis, but write it
in English and strip out the gibberish. It's been done. It's
been sidelined at various times, because some of the people
working at it are people who have been working on Colorado
River and other things, and it will go out to the people that
paid for it by Friday, regardless of the form it's in. There
has been no intent to sit on that study, other than my personal
insistence that it speak in English, and that's why I'm deeply
pained by this.
Senator Feinstein. So you were not, then, precluding
recycling projects from being part of this.
Mr. Raley. Of Calfed?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. Raley. No.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Raley. No. We have separate issues with respect to the
Bureau of Reclamation's budget. And our overall perspective has
been that while title 16 is a very important program, and every
single one of its various components can, in the right place at
the right time, be material additions to water supply needs, we
wish to have the Bureau of Reclamation focus on desalinization,
including seawater and brackish water desalinization, so that
we do not try to be all things to all people. Simply put, the
Bureau of Reclamation is not the appropriate entity to be the
lead, at a Federal level, on wastewater treatment capabilities.
Senator Feinstein. Now, in addition to recycling, are there
any other projects which we have not--that you're concerned
about?
Mr. Raley. Within the Calfed ROD?
Senator Feinstein. You say that the administration is
concerned that the bill gives blanket authorization to projects
that have not undergone the normal process of executive-branch
review. And I'm trying to get at what you're referring to.
Mr. Raley. Senator, I'd characterize that as a continued
expression by the executive branch of its need to look at
projects on a case-specific basis. I recognize up front,
Senator, that that desire is in somewhat--there's a tension
between that and the desire to move forward on a programmatic
basis to deal with a balanced Calfed. And we will work through
that tension to find success.
Senator Feinstein. Is that aimed because the environment--
there's a certain environmental authorization? Is that what
you're aiming at?
Mr. Raley. No, Senator, that is the--at a more substantive,
sort of, level, that is executive branch wanting to be able to
look at specific projects and--as a conceptual or a policy
matter.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you know----
Mr. Raley. Do not read more into that than----
Senator Feinstein [continuing). My view of this is that you
should have that right. I don't have a problem with it. The
thing that I have a problem with is the holding everything up.
You know, I think we ought to work together so that those
reviews take place. I don't want to fund projects that are not
valid and cost-effective projects. There's just too much that
has to be done.
Mr. Raley. Right.
Senator Feinstein. So I don't think that should be an
impediment, because we want to cooperate.
Mr. Raley. We know you do, Senator. And, actually, we share
the same goals. And that's an issue that I am quite
comfortable, I'm certain, can be resolved in the context of
your legislation.
Senator Feinstein. Right. And there are some projects where
you may want to say, ``If the State wants to fund that, that's
up to us, but we don't feel we should be a part of it.'' And
originally when we started this process, there were some
projects that I saw Calfed was doing, and I didn't think we
wanted to be a part of them either. But I think we've shaken
some of that out. And, I mean, if there is more of that, then
we need to take care of it.
Mr. Raley. Senator, I'd characterize it more as the
inherent tension as we try to move from the traditional Bureau
of Reclamation history of project-by-project-by-project
authorizations to a broader approach of Calfed and a crosscut
budget. That shift--I mean, if you compare, for example, the
WRDA process--and I'm not saying that Bureau should go to that.
I'm just saying the shift from a project-specific history of
authorizations to something like Calfed takes time, and there
are some steps in between as we move in that direction. That's
what that language referred to.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Raley.
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Raley, for the time that you've spent with
this committee.
Mr. Raley. It's a pleasure. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. We'd next like to invite to the table
the following witnesses--this is the stakeholder panel. Mr.
Patrick Wright, the director of the California Bay-Delta
Authority, Mr. Ron Gastelum, the CEO of the Metropolitan Water
District, Mr. Tom Birmingham, general manager for the Westlands
Water District, Mr. Tom Graff, regional director, Environmental
Defense, Ms. Sunne McPeak, the CEO of San Francisco Bay Area
Council, and Mr. David Guy, the executive director of the
Northern California Water Association.
Thank you all for being here today. I know that you all
certainly live with the realities of this program, and the
committee thanks you for your insight and your contributions
here. Also, I appreciate the travel that you have taken to join
us this afternoon.
Senator Feinstein. Madam Chairman, would you allow me just
one minute.
Sunne McPeak and I were supervisors together way back when,
and it's just great to have her here. And the San Francisco Bay
Area Council is really a very prestigious group of businesses
and major community leaders. And I must say that, as a public
official, she was one of the most impressive I have ever met,
and so it is just wonderful to have her back here in this new
capacity, which isn't new to her now, but the years have passed
for both of us, Sunne.
Ms. McPeak. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Well, with that, if we can
begin with you, Mr. Wright.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR,
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITY, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you this
afternoon.
Today, I'd like to provide just a brief overview of the
Bay-Delta Program's major accomplishments, with a special
emphasis on some of the key events that have taken place during
the last year. But first, of course, I, too, want to especially
express my appreciation for the leadership and the persistence
of your colleague, Senator Feinstein.
Together with Congressman Ken Calvert, on the House side,
she has been the strongest champion of this unprecedented
collaborative effort. And, in fact, we have made tremendous
progress since the State and Federal agencies came together in
the summer of 2000 with the Senator's help to a collaborative,
balanced, comprehensive plan to meet the goals of the program.
In the first 3 years of the program, we have coordinated
the expenditures of over $2 billion in Federal, State, and
local funds to meet the program's goals. We've significantly
improved the level of coordination among the nearly two dozen
agencies involved in the program. We have largely eliminated
the major conflicts that have occurred over Delta operations,
which previously led to annual shutdowns of the pumping plants.
And we have launched an independent science program which
conducts workshops and independent reviews of all the program
elements.
Now, I'd be one of the first people to say that one of our
challenges is describing the benefits of the program, since
they are not always highly visible. It's difficult sometimes to
measure the benefits and the value of agency coordination in
avoiding crises, and memories tend to be short about how bad
those crises were in the early 1990's.
And we aren't just talking about a handful of highly
visible water-supply projects, we're talking about an
investment in the last 3 years of a billion dollars in water-
supply projects to local communities throughout the State to
help them better meet their most pressing water needs and, just
as important, to reduce their dependence on the Delta and the
Colorado River.
On the ecosystem side, as well, we're not talking about a
handful of projects that have the kind of visibility of some of
Senator Feinstein's other efforts, like headwaters or the
desert or Tahoe. We're dealing, again, with hundreds of
ecosystem restoration projects to try to protect the largest
estuary on the west coast of the Americas.
Sometimes it's difficult to characterize that, because it's
a sum total of a lot of small projects. But, believe me, the
payoff is just as large and just as important for the State's
economy and environment.
The program is likely to become more visible this coming
year as we move forward with a package of actions to improve
the flexibility of the State's water system, including
expanding the capability of the State water project to pump
more water, a new and larger environmental water account to
protect fish and wildlife, and other measures to improve water
quality and protect local diverters.
Now, of course, there continues to be some skepticism out
there that the agencies can pull this off, that the conflicts
among competing users in California are simply too great to
overcome. But I think our growing track record suggests
otherwise. There is simply no question that we are--that water
supplies are significantly more reliable today than they were
three years ago, and there is no question that we have reversed
the decades-long decline in fish populations. One species has
already been de-listed, and others are clearly on the rebound.
And, finally, let me assure you that there's no place in
the country where so many agencies are working more closely
together, and no place where more funds are being devoted to
science to guide our decision-making.
At last year's hearing, I outlined our top three priorities
to keep this collaborative effort going. The first was to
establish a new governance structure to oversee implementation
of the program and to provide better oversight and
accountability. The second was to secure passage of a State
water bond, Proposition 50, to provide the State's share of
funding. And the third was congressional authorization for the
Federal agencies to fully participate in the program.
I'm very pleased to report that we now have a governance
structure in place and a source of State funding to carry us
through the next 3 years. What remains to be accomplished is
the third objective, a bill to authorize Federal partnership
and full participation in the program. That is the only way to
ensure that the Federal agencies remain highly committed to the
program and to maintain a strong State/Federal partnership,
rather than being left with a State effort with limited Federal
coordination and oversight.
Simply put, a strong State/Federal partnership is essential
to move forward in building upon our accomplishments to date.
Thank you, again, for hearing my comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Wright, Director,
California Bay-Delta Authority, Sacramento, CA
Chairwoman Murkowski and members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
afternoon. Today I would like to provide a brief overview of the Bay-
Delta Program's major accomplishments, with an emphasis on the events
since I last testified before the Subcommittee.
But first, I want especially to express my appreciation for the
leadership and persistence of your colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Together with Congressman Ken Calvert on the House side, she has been a
strong champion of this unprecedented effort to implement a long-term
comprehensive plan to address ecological health and water supply
reliability problems in the Bay-Delta.
The California Bay-Delta Program is unique in its collaborative and
non-regulatory approach to solving water and ecosystem problems. A
partnership of state and federal agencies and stakeholders, it
addresses four resource management issues concurrently and in a
balanced fashion: water supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem
restoration, and levee system integrity.
The issues in the Delta have broad effects statewide, and even
throughout the West. The Bay-Delta system:
Provides drinking water to 22 million people
Supports a trillion dollar economy, including a $27 billion
agricultural industry
Forms of the hub of the largest estuary on the west coast
and is home to 750 plant and animal species and supports 80
percent of the State's commercial salmon fisheries.
We have made much progress since August 2000, when State and
Federal CALFED agencies signed the Record of Decision (ROD), formally
approving a long-term plan for the Delta. In its first three years, the
Program has:
Coordinated the expenditures of over $2 billion in federal,
state, and local funds to meet the Program's goals;
Significantly improved the level of coordination among the
nearly two dozen agencies that are involved in the program;
Largely eliminated major conflicts over Delta operations,
which previously led to annual shutdowns of the pumping plants,
through the development of the Environmental Water Account; and
Launched an Independent Science Program, which conducts
workshops and independent reviews of all program elements.
At last year's hearing, I outlined our three top priorities for the
coming year:
Establishing a new governance structure to oversee
implementation of the program;
Securing passage of the state water bond, Proposition 50, to
provide the state's share of funding for the program; and
Congressional authorization for the federal agencies to
fully participate in the program.
I am pleased to report to you that we now have a governance
structure in place and a source of state funding to carry us through
the next three years. What remains to be accomplished is the third
objective: a bill to authorize federal partnership and full
participation in the Program.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITY ACT OF 2003
The California Bay-Delta Authority (Authority), established by
California legislation enacted in 2002 (California Bay-Delta Authority
Act), provides a permanent governance structure for the collaborative
State-Federal effort that began in 1994. The Authority is charged
specifically with ensuring balanced implementation of the Program,
providing accountability to the Legislature, Congress and the public,
and ensuring the use of sound science across all Program areas.
The Authority is composed of representatives from six State
agencies and six Federal agencies, five public members from the
Program's five regions, two at-large public members, a representative
from the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, and four ex officio
members who are the chairs and vice-chairs of the California Senate and
Assembly water committees. At present, lacking specific authorization
to be full participants, the federal members engage in discussions but
do not vote. In addition, the legislation establishing the Authority
contains a sunset clause that will eliminate the program unless a
federal authorization bill is passed by 2006.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS PASS PROPOSITION 50
In November 2002, California voters passed a $3.4 billion bond
measure known as Prop. 50, which provides funding for water quality and
local water supply projects, coastal land protection and acquisition,
and for activities directly and indirectly related to the Bay-Delta
Program.
In all, the $825 million in direct funding and roughly 2 billion in
funding for Bay-Delta related programs and projects means that the
Program is on solid financial footing through FY 2006.
FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION
The Federal agencies have also contributed significantly to the
program. In the first three years, we have coordinated the expenditures
of approximately $150 million, primarily from the Department of
Interior, on programs and projects that directly contribute to the
goals of the Bay-Delta Program.
We've also worked with the federal agencies to better clarify the
elements of the Program that either already have--or still need--
Federal authorization. We have concluded that nearly all of the
specific projects in the Record of Decision are authorized under
existing statutes, including the Reclamation Act, the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, and the Clean Water Act, but that federal
legislation is needed to authorize federal involvement in our efforts
to better coordinate these programs with state and local programs to
address the state's water supply, water quality, and ecosystem
restoration needs.
In summary, with a governance structure and state funding in place,
our primary goal now is to secure federal authorization and funding for
the program. That is the only way we can continue to have a strong
state/federal partnership, rather than a state effort with limited
federal oversight.
Thank you again for hearing my comments.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Wright. I appreciate your
testimony.
Ms. McPeak.
STATEMENT OF SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BAY AREA
COUNCIL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Ms. McPeak. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Senator
Feinstein. It is, indeed, a pleasure to be invited here to
share the perspective of the employer community.
You have my written testimony. Let me just briefly
summarize our perspective.
I do work for the Bay Area Council, which is about 270
major employers in the San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area.
We also work with a coalition of employer organizations
throughout California. And as Senator Feinstein introduced this
bill today, she referenced the usual stakeholders that
participate in water--water agencies in the urban areas, Ag,
and environmental community.
A couple of decades ago, the Bay Area Council and employers
in California became engaged. And I dare say that that's a very
positive force in the dynamic of trying to reach consensus. For
me, I have spent, personally, 30 years in California water
policy. And your opening statement about Mark Twain's humorous
observation of California's history around water is true--up
until the time that the Calfed record of decision was signed.
Now, we're still going to drink whiskey, and hopefully
we'll do that in celebration. But the reason I'm here today is
because we have the opportunity to set behind us the water wars
and to go forward with environmental restoration and stability
for economic recovery. The employer community in the Bay Area
and California look to Congress and your action in the Senate
to be a signal for, ``Can we actually have stability in our
infrastructure?''
We participated in the Calfed process. I served for 5 years
as co-chair of the Citizens Bay-Delta Advisory Committee that
recommended the record of decision. After 30 years, you get
some perspective. We have survived changes in administration,
both in Sacramento and in Washington. That speaks well. I was
very enheartened to see that our new Governor-elect has already
become active in supporting the adoption of Calfed as a Federal
commitment, going forward.
I want to just underscore why we think it's important that
there be action on this bill. Even though there exists
authorization for some of the Federal agencies to participate,
if there is not the affirmation, the recommitment, the signal
from the Congress and the Federal administration to be a full
partner in Calfed, there may be questions, there may not be as
much enthusiasm, there may not be as much energy committed to
the implementation of the programs. Furthermore, what Senator
Feinstein has referenced as a balanced package we want to
underscore as being essential as integrated set of actions
that, unless they are fully carried out, all components of
Calfed, we will not have enough water for either the
environment or the economy.
So we come here today in support of you, Senator Feinstein,
and your leadership. When you pulled everybody together in the
early 1990's, and we finally got the accord and then moved on
to Calfed, the business community welcomed that. We have
unified north, south, east, west, which is not easy to do in
the State of California. And we greatly appreciate, Madam
Chair, your hearing us out, and we are enheartened by hearing
the testimony heretofore that has the prospect of that
momentum, so that we can, in fact, move ahead on a reasonable,
reliable water policy for the State of California.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McPeak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO,
Bay Area Council, San Francisco, CA
The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored, CEO-led, public-
policy organization founded in 1945 to promote economic prosperity and
quality of life in the region. The Bay Area region encompasses the nine
counties that rim San Francisco Bay and their 101 cities, including
Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose, the heart of Silicon Valley. The
economy of the Bay Area is approximately $300 billion annually. The
regional economy not only is dependent on an adequate supply of quality
water to thrive, but also is closely linked to the environmental health
of the Bay-Delta Ecosystem. As an association of major employers, the
Bay Area Council has been involved in California water policy issues
during the last two decades, and since 1994, has been deeply engaged in
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Bay Area Council also works closely
with a coalition of business-sponsored, employer-based statewide and
regional organizations throughout California.
The following points summarize the perspectives of the Bay Area
Council and the coalition of business-sponsored, employer-based
organizations in support of S. 1097 and implementation of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program and Record of Decision.
With the state and the nation still recovering from a prolonged
economic downturn, it is critical that we do not hamper economic
recovery because of a water system in chaos.
California faced economic chaos and political paralysis in early
1990 when urban areas throughout the state were imposing mandatory
rationing due to drought and policy gridlock. At that time, businesses
were questioning whether to expand or locate plants in California,
because of concerns regarding unreliable water supplies. Farmers in the
southern San Joaquin Valley received no surface water supplies and key
fisheries in the Bay-Delta watershed were declining at alarming rates.
The Bay-Delta Ecosystem is the largest estuary in North America, a
key stop on the Pacific flyway. It also is a critical drinking water
source for 22 million Californians. In addition, the water supplies
from this watershed also fuel California's economic engine, now the 5th
largest economy in the world.
Employers that drive economic growth and productivity are among the
most dependent on reliable, high-quality water. Thriving businesses
lead to more jobs that lead to a stronger economy. California's growing
population, expected to approach 50 million by 2020 will need more
jobs. The Bay Area alone is projected to generate more than 1 million
news jobs by 2020 and grow by an estimated 1.4 million people.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program provides the road map for the future
of California water. The key components of the plan are to improve
water supply and quality and the ecological health of the Bay-Delta
Ecosystem.
Through the CALFED Program and local investment in water
conservation, reclamation and other programs, considerable gains are
being made in water supply reliability. The water market between
willing buyers and sellers has also improved. Most impressive have been
gains in CALFED's unprecedented ecosystem restoration program.
California businesses have invested literally billions of dollars
to increase their water efficiency and get more out of every gallon of
water.
But full implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program cannot be
realized without federal authorization and funding.
S. 1097 provides the authorization and funding to advance the
CALFED storage and conveyance programs. The business community views
these components as critical pieces to improving the water supply for
both California and the states served by the Colorado River.
Funds also are included for water quality improvements vital to Bay
Area and California high value-added industries, such as information
technology and life sciences.
This legislation also continues to support California's aggressive
efforts in the area of water use efficiency, water recycling and
desalination.
S. 1097 helps to continue the commitment to environmental
restoration in an essential partnership with responsible federal
agencies to ensure timeliness and optimal benefit.
The CALFED Record of Decision was an historic accomplishment made
possible because of unprecedented cooperation and collaboration between
federal and state leaders and agencies. A broad base of stakeholders
joined forces to support an integrated, balanced set of actions
essential to restore the environment and support economic prosperity.
It is critical that the federal government remain a vital partner in
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Now is the time for action. Approval of
S. 1097 ensures that the Bay-Delta Ecosystem will be protected and
restored while California's economy has the necessary water resources
to rebound and sustain prosperity.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Graff.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. GRAFF, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, OAKLAND, CA
Mr. Graff. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Feinstein.
I, too, want to add my comments to those of others, other
Senators and Sunne McPeak. It's always difficult to follow
Sunne McPeak when one is on a panel. In the old days, when she
was the supervisor and the Senator was mayor and supervisor, we
all worked together on a little project called the Peripheral
Canal Referendum. Those were amazing days, I have to say.
However, Senator, your remarkable efforts and persistence
on these issues are something that your colleagues have
recognized. That's obviously more important than my recognizing
it, but I do want to, sort of, attach my voice to that set of
comments, as well, and just to commend you on the ability to
get a letter from the Governor-elect and have that be one of
the first comments of our new leader-to-be in California.
I'm going to just take highlight excerpts from my written
testimony--I know that's part of the record--and hopefully not
take too much of the committee's time.
I start by saying that the fundamental questions that S.
1097 presents to this subcommittee, and ultimately to the
Congress as a whole and to the President, are two: One, whether
the Calfed Program should be authorized at all; and the other,
if it is to be authorized, should it be authorized, quote, ``in
a manner consistent with'' the August 28, 2000, ROD?
The Calfed Program, as it has evolved, has much to commend
it. Most notably--although it has, of course, not operated
without considerable friction among some stakeholders,
including some at this table and between the Federal and State
governments, almost irrespective of political party--it's
greatest strength is that it brings the Federal and State water
project operating agencies and departments and the Federal and
State natural resource management agencies under one umbrella.
Calfed pressures agencies to consult, to resolve differences,
and to operate in a more consistent manner. And I think Senator
Feinstein deserves immense credit for making all that happen.
And that has had effects. Speaking narrowly, from the
environmentalist perspective, the birds of the Pacific flyway,
and the migratory and resident fish of the San Francisco Bay-
Delta watershed generally are better off today than they were a
decade ago when Calfed was originally launched. And this, of
course, is also a tribute to Congress, and, in particular, to
the passage of the CVPIA in 1992, and to the work of--the
bipartisan work, I might add, of Senators Bradley and Garn in
passing that bill.
Other Federal laws also play important parts in protecting
the ecosystem, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act,
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, among others.
So even if a Calfed Program, per se, is not formally
reauthorized by Congress, some version of it, we believe, will
surely continue. The merits of Federal/State and of operator/
resource-manager cooperation have been widely recognized, and
all agencies recognize the importance of working together to
resolve or at least minimize conflicts.
So that's the good news. What's the bad news?
The bad news is that the Record of Decision of August 28,
2000, has not been funded. And I just might comment, in
retrospect, that was clear that it was not going to happen,
even under the very budgetarily positive circumstances, Federal
and State, that were still the case in 2000, and here we are,
of course, 3 years later, when the fiscal realities are very
different at both levels of government.
The most fundamental assumption, that has proved to be
false, from the August 28, 2000, ROD, was the one Secretary
Babbitt made in assuming that there would be a minimum of $2.5
billion in Federal funds available to subsidize Calfed for just
the first 7 years of the program's life. And it is a 30-year
program. In his view, the Federal share would have matched
comparable State and user shares for a total of $7\1/2\
billion, and it was actually an $8\1/2\ billion program, and
the ROD never identified the other billion as to where it would
come from.
The second assumption that's proved to be false is the
remarkable expectation at the time that water users would step
forward to pay their fair share of the program's costs.
Anyone looking at the circumstances, even in 2000, would
have, I think, concluded that the users had no intention of
contributing significant funds to the environmental restoration
objectives of the ROD. Indeed, their principal financial
objective was to get taxpayers to pay, not only for
restoration, but, as much as possible, for mitigation,
including the year-to-year funding for the so-called
environmental water account.
And we are supporters, I might add, of the environmental
water account, but it is a mechanism that allows the water
users to have their full export quantities, and it ought to be
viewed as mitigation and paid for by users, rather than be
subsidized by taxpayers.
Similarly, the users apparently have no intention of paying
for new surface storage projects either. Their goal, again,
Federal and State taxpayer subsidies justified, if they believe
justification is needed at all, by specious arguments that the
dams they hope and expect taxpayers will fund are environmental
dams that have no user benefits warranting significant
contributions by project beneficiaries.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Graff?
Mr. Graff. Yes?
Senator Murkowski. I'm going to have to interrupt you.
We've got just a couple of minutes left in a vote.
Mr. Graff. Okay, I'll try and wrap up.
Senator Murkowski. I was hoping that you would be able to
wrap up your testimony before we took a break.
Mr. Graff. I just wanted to point out, then, a couple more
things, that the administration is not even funding 25 percent
of reclamation projects, and that's too bad. And then, lastly,
although this is a complex matter, probably beyond the interest
of many who are not from California, the projects and the water
exporters went to a meeting to which they did not invite many
other interested parties, including many who have opposed
Calfed from the start, and came up with a program to increase
Delta exports by a million acre-feet per year, or more.
And I brought the documentation for that, in case anyone's
interested. I understand they're now back-pedaling from that
number, but it is the number that they put out. And our
position, basically, on the second part of the bill, whether to
reauthorize this program on the basis of the August 28, 2000,
ROD is, no, until at least we understand better what the
million acre-feet of additional exports mean and we know where
the funding is coming from.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Graff, Regional Director,
Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA
Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee: Thank you for your
invitation to testify today on S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta
Authorization Act.
I am Thomas J. Graff, California Regional Director of Environmental
Defense, a national environmental advocacy organization. I have
represented Environmental Defense in various capacities since 1971. I
have also served on several boards and commissions that have dealt with
issues related to those raised by S. 1097, including the Colorado River
Board of California, the National Research Council's Committee on
Western Water Management Change, the San Joaquin Valley Drainage
Investigation Program Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Bay Delta
Advisory Council.
S. 1097 is a complex bill whose basic intent, as stated by its
authors, is ``To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement
the Calfed Bay-Delta Program''. Definitions proposed in the bill
indicate that the Calfed Program includes ``programs, projects,
complementary actions, and activities undertaken through coordinated
planning, implementation, and assessment activities of . . . State and
Federal agencies in a manner consistent with [a] Record of Decision
(ROD) dated August 28, 2000, issued by the Federal agencies and
supported by the State''.
The fundamental questions S. 1097 presents to this Subcommittee and
ultimately to the Congress as a whole and to the President are:
(1) Whether the Calfed Program should be authorized at all;
and
(2) If it is to be authorized, should it be authorized ``in a
manner consistent with'' the August 28, 2000 ROD.
These are important and difficult questions not only for
California's Senators and Representatives, but also for Senators and
Representatives hailing from other states of the Union, especially the
Western Reclamation States. The answers Congress gives to these
questions will have reverberations in physical terms, in economic
repercussions, and in setting precedents on significant issues of
natural resource management and of federalism, that will bear on the
other 49 states almost as much as they will impact California and its
resources and governance directly.
The Calfed Program, as it has evolved, has much to commend it. Most
notably, although it has of course not operated without considerable
friction among stakeholders and between the Federal and State
Governments, almost irrespective of political party affiliation, its
greatest strength is that it brings the Federal and State water project
operating agencies and departments and the Federal and State natural
resource management (and to some degree regulatory) agencies under one
umbrella. Calfed pressures agencies to consult, to resolve differences,
and to operate in a more consistent, coordinated, and cooperative
manner, that addresses the interests of many stakeholders.
Speaking narrowly from the environmental perspective, the birds of
the Pacific Flyway and the migratory and resident fish of the San
Francisco Bay Delta watershed generally are better off today than they
were a decade ago, when Calfed was originally launched. This is in
large measure a tribute to Congress' passage of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and especially in this body to the work
of Senators Bradley and Garn in passing the 1992 omnibus water projects
act. But it also reflects the operations of other federal laws,
including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, all of which give Federal (and to some
degree State) wildlife and environmental quality managers authority and
tools to fulfill their mandates, working in cooperation with the water
project operating agencies, who generally view their principal
responsibility to be the delivery of water supplies to their
contractors.
Even if a Calfed program per se is not formally reauthorized by
Congress, some version of it will surely continue. The merits of
Federal-State and of operator-resource manager cooperation have been
widely recognized, and all agencies recognize the importance of working
together to resolve, or at least minimize, conflicts.
The much more difficult question, however, is not whether a Calfed
program of some kind should proceed, whether with formal Congressional
authorization or without, but rather whether the program that proceeds
should be the one adopted by the Clinton and Davis Administrations on
August 28, 2000 in the Record of Decision signed by Secretary of the
Interior Babbitt and Secretary of Resources Nichols. Many in the
environmental community have pinned their hopes on the 2000 ROD, have
successfully worked to pass large State bond measures and funding
authorizations based on the 2000 ROD, and have rightfully criticized
significant decisions, particularly decisions by the Department of the
Interior, that have cut back on environmental assurances promised in
the 2000 ROD.
For Environmental Defense, however, whatever one's view may have
been of the merits of the 2000 ROD when it was issued, it should be
clear now, more than three years later, that basic assumptions
underlying the ROD are no longer valid and that the fundamental
political compromise that Secretaries Babbitt and Nichols forged--that
appeared to give both the export contractors and environmental
advocates expectations that Calfed would meet their needs has proved to
be unsustainable in the real world of stakeholder negotiations and of
pressure on project operators and resource managers to deliver on these
expectations.
The most fundamental assumption that has proved to be false was the
one Secretary Babbitt made in assuming that there would be a minimum of
$2.5 billion in Federal funds available to subsidize the Calfed program
over just the first seven years of the program's life. In his view,
this Federal share would have matched comparable State and user shares
for a total of $7.5 billion. For an additional billion dollars of the
$8.5 billion that the 2000 ROD contemplated would be spent in the first
seven years, the ROD identified no source.
The second assumption that also has proved to be false was the
remarkable expectation that water users would step forward to pay their
fair share of the program's costs. For any veteran observer of the
history of both the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project,
it was of course obvious even in 2000 that the users had no intention
of contributing significant funds to the environmental restoration
objectives of the ROD. Indeed, their principal financial objective was
to get taxpayers to pay not only for restoration, but as much as
possible for mitigation of their own project environmental impacts, an
objective on which they have made significant headway not only in the
passage of State Propositions 40 and 50, but also in year-to-year
Congressional and State funding of the so-called ``Environmental''
Water Account.
It also should have been obvious then, as it is obvious now, that
the users have no intention of paying for new surface storage projects
either. Their goal again: Federal and State taxpayer subsidies
justified, if they believe justification is needed at all, by specious
arguments that the dams they hope and expect taxpayers will fund are
environmental dams, that have no user benefits warranting significant
contributions by project beneficiaries.
It is with respect to the federal funding issue that the contrast
is perhaps greatest between the last Federal Administration and the
current Administration. Secretary Norton's Water 2025 initiative and
her Administration's recent successful conclusion of the package of
agreements surrounding the California 4.4 Plan are real achievements,
but they are not major departures from the efforts of Secretary Babbitt
that preceded Secretary Norton's involvements. What is a departure was
perhaps most graphically demonstrated in Administration testimony just
last month before this Subcommittee's counterpart in the House of
Representatives.
Testifying on a group of bills to authorize Federal participation
in a number of wastewater recycling projects, including a bill
introduced by Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, on which Federal
cost-shares are generally limited to no more than 25 percent of the
projects' costs, the Administration brusquely opposed all the projects
(which Senator Boxer is co-sponsoring in the Senate). To quote the
Administration testimony on just one of these bills, Congressman
Dreier's H.R. 2991: ``Any new project authorized at this time will
place an additional burden on Reclamation's already tight budget, and
could potentially delay the completion of other currently authorized
projects. With the tremendous back log of existing Title XVI projects,
we cannot support the addition of new projects at this time.''
If there is no Federal money available to cost-share, at no more
than 25 percent of their total cost, broadly beneficial and supported
wastewater reclamation projects, for which there are local co-sponsors
and supplemental funding lined up, what chance is there that the $8.5
billion program envisioned in the CALFED 2000 ROD will ever be funded
at the Federal level?
The lack of assumed Federal funding for most purposes and the lack
of assumed user funding for environmental purposes and for dam
construction, however, are not the only major problems with the 2000
ROD. The other fundamental problem with the 2000 ROD was the
expectation it created among the Federal and State water project export
contractors that San Francisco Bay Delta exports could be substantially
increased, without substantial adverse effects on the Bay, other water
users, upstream and Delta interests, and the environment. Several of
the more suspicious and paranoid, or perhaps far-sighted, advocates of
these often overlooked constituencies were critical of the 2000 ROD
from the start. The Farm Bureau, the Regional Council of Rural
Counties, the Central and South Delta Water Agencies and Trinity River
protectors, to name just a few opponents, either filed litigation or
pursued active political opposition against the ROD or both.
Now, just three years after the ROD's issuance, their skepticism
has proven to be fully warranted. This July, at a meeting in Napa
attended by Federal and State project operators and Federal and State
export contractors, but not by Calfed's leaders, by Federal or State
natural resource managers, or by representatives of many other water
interest or environmental groups, a Proposition was developed to
increase Delta exports. According to its leading proponents, the Napa
Proposition and associated projects authorized in the 2000 ROD would
increase Delta diversions by a million acre feet per year or more.
Definitely without any of the new proposed storage projects that the
2000 ROD singled out for feasibility analysis and mostly without
significant financial investment in new projects of any kind, the Napa
Proposition ``created'' a million acre feet for its stakeholder
participants.
Claiming that it was simply implementing the 2000 ROD, the Napa
Proposition would allow State Water Project contractors (who are not
subject to the acreage limitations established in federal law)
unprecedented access to the Central Valley Project's water storage
reservoirs. It would also accept as a liability of the Central Valley
Project much of the more junior State Water Project's responsibility to
meet water quality and environmental obligations in the Bay and Delta
and beyond. In exchange, the most junior contractors of the Central
Valley Project receive an additional water supply. And what operational
flexibility and opportunity for coordination Napa determined the
projects can muster are reserved exclusively for the exporters'
benefit.
All this, of course, would operate to the detriment of the other
interests who were not invited to the Napa negotiations, including not
only Bay, Delta, upstream, and environmental interests, but Trinity
River proponents as well. Despite the United States' trust obligation
to the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes, no promise was extracted from any CVP
contractor that it would dismiss litigation against the United States,
the Trinity River and the Tribes, even though CVP contractors would
receive very substantial benefits if Napa were to be implemented. The
oft-repeated mantra of the project contractors--``We should all get
better together''--rings hollow indeed in Napa's aftermath.
So the fundamental issue this Subcommittee faces, as it considers
S. 1097, is whether to authorize a program based on the 2000 ROD, for
which little federal or user funding is likely to be forthcoming and
which is expected by its principal stakeholder proponents to provide a
million acre-feet or more per year of additional Delta exports.
When the question is posed in this manner, I believe the whole
Senate, including the bill's sponsors, should oppose the bill. It ought
now to be incumbent, especially on the Napa Proposition's drafters, to
explain how the CVP and the SWP can safely and equitably increase their
draw on the Bay Delta ecosystem and on northern California generally by
over a million acre feet, how they can do it without significant new
Federal and user funding, and how they can do it without adverse
impacts on other communities and on the environment.
Environmental Defense challenges the contractors to make their
case. If they cannot make their case, this is not the end of Calfed.
But it should be the end of the unreasonable and unsustainable
expectations of additional Delta exports that were created by the
Calfed ROD and that are expanded and codified in the Napa Proposition.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I'm going to let everybody take a little stretch break
while we go vote, and we'll be back in a few minutes.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Murkowski. Okay, we are back on the record. I
apologize for that delay. Hopefully, we'll be able to get
through the balance of the panel without any further
interruption.
Mr. Birmingham, if you can give us your testimony, please?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, GENERAL MANAGER/GENERAL
COUNSEL, WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, FRESNO, CA
Mr. Birmingham. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator
Feinstein.
At the outset, I want to state that Westlands strongly
supports S. 1097, and would like to extend to Senator Feinstein
Westlands' appreciation for her introduction of this bill.
I wish that Senator Kyl and Senator Burns were here,
because I would like also to extend to them our appreciation
for their hard work in the last Congress, with Senator
Feinstein, to craft a bill.
But I would like to extend to Senator Kyl and Senator Burns
our appreciation for their hard work, on behalf of California
and the Nation, to craft a bill in the last Congress that we
could then, and now, enthusiastically support.
Westlands Water District is one of 32 Central Valley
Project contractors south of the Bay-Delta that receive water
from the Central Valley Project primarily for irrigation
purposes.
I certainly don't want to disagree with anything that
Senator Feinstein said in her opening remarks, but, frankly,
Calfed probably is a little bit--from our perspective, a little
bit too late and too little. Agriculture on the west side of
the San Joaquin Valley, which is one of the most productive
regions in the world, is at risk because of inadequate water
supplies. Over the course of the last 10 years, we have seen
our water-supply reliability go from an average of 92 percent,
in 1991, to a 50 percent reliability based upon the regulatory
baseline described in the Calfed Record of Decision.
That water supply has improved over the course of the last
few years, in large part thanks to the prodding of Senator
Feinstein and the efforts of the Calfed agencies to improve
water-supply reliability. But if we're going to sustain
agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in
other areas of California, we must move forward with the Calfed
Program.
In 1957, prior to the construction of the State Water
Project that Senator Feinstein referred to in her comments, the
California Department of Water Resources wrote, in the first
California Water Plan Bulletin, bulletin three, ``California is
presently faced with problems of a highly critical nature, the
need for further control, protection, conservation, and
distribution of her most vital resource, water.
Today, the future agricultural, urban, and industrial
growth of California hinges on a highly important decision,
which is well within the power of the people to make. We can
move forward with a thriving economy by pursuing a vigorous and
progressive water development planning and construction
program, or we can allow our economy to stagnate, perhaps even
retrogress, by adopting a complacent attitude and leaving each
district, community, agency, or other entity to secure its own
water supply as best it can with small regard to the needs of
others.
As Senator Feinstein said, today we're facing an identical
problem. We're trying to maintain the economy of the State of
California with an infrastructure that was designed and
constructed when the population of the State was 14 to 16
million people, and today we are at 35 million people, and we
will have inevitable growth that must be accommodated through
the construction of new water infrastructure.
As Senator Feinstein indicated in her opening remarks,
California has very many different water needs--water for
environmental restoration, for cities, and for farmers. If the
needs are going to be met, we must have a program for water
conservation, recycling, and desalination; water quality must
be improved; but, of greater importance, from our perspective,
we need new water storage and water conveyance. The Calfed
Program was designed to meet the needs of all of these water
interests in an evenhanded manner, and S. 1097 provides the
needed authorization for continued Federal participation in the
Calfed program.
We are going back to a situation that existed without the
authorization. We will go back to the situation that existed
prior to 1994, when the Calfed Program was authorized, where
the many Federal agencies that had a role in regulating water
in the State of California--the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service--were all taking divergent views of what
should be done. As Senator Feinstein indicated, among the
primary purposes of the Calfed Program were to put all of these
agencies under one umbrella, where they could move forward
together.
Today, because of the lack of authorization for the Calfed
Program, many of the agencies are no longer acting as full
partners in the Calfed Program. In particular, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers
will play vital roles in the development of a balanced Calfed
Program, and the authorization provided by S. 1097 is critical
to bringing them back under the Calfed umbrella.
At this point, I would like to, again reiterate our support
for S. 1097. I think that S. 1097, or the Calfed Program, is a
model that could be used by other States who have similar
competing needs for water. It is a model of cooperation. And
because it attempts to address the needs of all water interests
in a balanced manner, it has the potential of being highly
successful.
And, again, I thank the committee, or the subcommittee, for
hearing my testimony. I would request that it accept my written
testimony in the record.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. We will do that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Birmingham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas W. Birmingham,
General Manager/General Counsel, Westlands Water District, Fresno, CA
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for allowing
me to testify regarding S. 1097, the California Bay-Delta Authorization
Act (Act), introduced by Senator Feinstein to authorize the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program. My name is Thomas Birmingham, and I the General Manager/
General Counsel of Westlands Water District (``Westlands''). At the
outset, I want to state that Westlands strongly supports S. 1097 and
extend to Senator Feinstein Westlands' appreciation for her
introduction of this legislation. The enactment of S. 1097 would ensure
that the CALFED Program is implemented in a balanced and innovative
manner that links progress on environmental restoration and enhancement
with progress on water supply and water quality improvements. Its
passage is of great importance to the people of California, indeed the
nation.
Westlands Water District is a California water district that serves
irrigation water to a 605,000 acre area on the west side of the San
Joaquin Valley in Fresno and Kings counties. The District averages 15
miles in width and is 70 miles long. The demand for irrigation water in
Westlands is 1.4 million acre-feet per year. Historically, that demand
has been satisfied through water made available to the District from
the Central Valley Project under contracts with the United States for
the delivery of 1.15 million acre-feet.
Westlands is one of the most fertile, productive and diversified
farming regions in the nation. Rich soil, a good climate, and
innovative farm management have helped make the area served by
Westlands one of the most productive farming areas in the San Joaquin
Valley and the nation. Westlands farmers produce over 50 different
commercial fiber and food crops sold for the fresh, dry, canned or
frozen food markets; domestic and export. Crops grown in Westlands
include almonds, apples, apricots, asparagus, broccoli, cantaloupes,
table grapes, wine grapes, lettuce, tomatoes, and cotton.
Westlands estimates that the value of crops produced by farmers in
the District exceeds $1 billion per year. Using a well-accepted
economic assumption that every $1 produced on-farm generates another
$3.50 in the economy, Westlands farmers produce nearly $3.5 billion in
economic activity annually. Like every other region of the arid west,
the ability of our farmers to produce crops and generate this economic
activity depends on the availability of an adequate, reliable source of
water.
Farmers in Westlands benefited from the vision and foresight of
prior Californians and federal officials who planned, designed, and
constructed the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
Among these visionaries were the California Department of Water
Resource engineers who wrote 1957 California Water Plan. They observed:
California is presently faced with problems of a highly
critical nature the need for further control, protection,
conservation, and distribution of her most vital resource
water. While these problems are not new, having been existent
since the advent of the first white settlers, never before have
they reached such widespread and serious proportions. Their
critical nature stems not only from the unprecedented recent
growth in population, industry, and agriculture in a semiarid
state, but also from the consequences of a long period during
which the construction of water conservation works has not kept
pace with the increased need for additional water. Unless
corrective action is taken--and taken immediately--the
consequences may be disastrous.
Today, the future agricultural, urban, and industrial growth
of California hinges on a highly important decision, which is
well within the power of the people to make. We can move
forward with a thriving economy by pursuing a vigorous and
progressive water development planning and construction
program; or we can allow our economy to stagnate, perhaps even
retrogress, by adopting a complacent attitude and leaving each
district, community, agency or other entity to secure its own
water supply as best it can with small regard to the needs of
others. The choice of these alternatives is clear.
The need for coordinated planning on a statewide basis has
long been realized. Comprehensive plans have been formulated
and reported upon in the past, and noteworthy accomplishments
have been achieved by local enterprise and private and public
agencies. But despite the great water development projects
construed in the past, California's water problems continue to
grow day by day.
Today, the people of California are faced with an identical
problem. Since the California Water Plan was written in 1957, the
population of the state has grown from 14 million to over 35 million
people, and the Department of Water Resources projects that by the year
2020, the population will exceed 50 million people. Yet, except for the
efforts of a few local agencies, like Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, and Contra Costa Water
District virtually no new storage has been constructed. Stated
succinctly, California is attempting to maintain the state's economy
with water infrastructure has changed little from the 1960s. It is
inadequate to meet the existing demands of the state, let alone
accommodate inevitable growth. The CALFED Program is designed to
address the immediate need to construct new water conveyance and
storage facilities and provide essential tools to better manage
California's water resources, while at the same time restoring and
enhancing the Bay-Delta watershed.
Westlands views the CALFED Program from a perspective that is
substantially different than most water agencies in the state. Over the
course of the last 12 years Westlands, along with other agencies on the
westside of the San Joaquin Valley that contract with the United States
to receive water from the Central Valley Project, has experienced
chronic water shortages, even in wet hydrologic periods. These
shortages are the result of the implementation of the federal
Endangered Species Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
which was passed by Congress and signed into law by former President
George Bush in October 1992.
The purposes of this Act were:
(a) to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River
basins of California;
(b) to address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish,
wildlife and associated habitats;
(c) to improve the operational flexibility of the Central
Valley Project;
(d) to increase water-related benefits provided by the
Central Valley Project to the State of California through
expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water
conservation;
(e) to contribute to the State of California's interim and
long-term efforts to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta Estuary;
(f) to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands
for use of Central Valley Project water, including the
requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and
industrial and power contractors.
The CVPIA was implemented by the Department of the Interior in a
manner that has reallocated more than 1,000,000 acre-feet of Project
water away from farmers who relied upon this water for decades to the
environment--for the restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife.
Moreover, virtually all of the water supply reductions that have
resulted from implementation of the Act have been imposed on south-of-
Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water service contractors.
Indeed, the reliability of water supplies for these contractors,
including Westlands, went from 92% on average in 1991 to 50% under the
regulatory baseline described in the CALFED Record of Decision.
The disproportionate impact of these regulatory requirements on the
water supplies of west side farmers was recognized by Governor Gray
Davis and former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt in June 2000,
when they signed the CALFED document entitled ``California's Water
Future, A Framework for Action.'' In that document Governor Davis and
Secretary Babbitt correctly noted that Westlands and other San Joaquin
Valley agricultural water contractors had been ``disproportionately
affected by recent regulatory actions,'' and they described a number of
actions that would restore, over both the short-term and the long-term,
these contractors' water supplies.
During the first three years of Stage 1 of the CALFED Program the
water supplies of Westlands and other south-of-Delta Central Valley
Project agricultural water service contractors have been restored to a
significant degree. But the viability of agriculture in this region is
still at risk because of inadequate water supplies. Implementation of
the actions that will provide long-term benefits to these contractors
will require the continued commitment of the federal government to the
CALFED Program. These actions include construction of an intertie
between the California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal and
implementation of the South Delta Improvement Program, which will
increase pumping at the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant to 8500 cubic
feet per second and provide water quality improvements and other
benefits for in-Delta water users.
There are numerous reasons the federal government has a prominent
role in implementing CALFED Program. First, the United States Bureau of
Reclamation operates the Central Valley Project, the largest water
supply project in California. In addition, other federal agencies,
including the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corp of Engineers,
play a role in regulating the operations of the Central Valley Project
or the State Water Project and will play a role in restoring water
supply reliability to agencies that rely on water diverted from the
Delta. These federal agencies were full partners in the creation of the
CALFED Program in 1994 because, in part, they understood that a
successful program to accomplish restoration of the Bay-Delta
ecosystem, improve water quality, and restore water supply reliability
would require a coordinated effort.
California has many different water needs: water for restoration
for our environment; water for cities; and water for farms. If these
needs are going to be met there must be programs for water
conservation, recycling and desalination. Water quality must be
improved. And of equal importance, we need new water storage, both
groundwater and surface, and improved water conveyance. The CALFED
Program was designed to meet all of these needs in an evenhandedly
manner. S. 1097 provides the needed authorization for continued federal
participation in the CALFED Program.
Of great importance to Westlands, S. 1097 explicitly requires
balanced implementation of the CALFED Program. Key to maintaining that
balance is the on-going consideration of surface water storage
projects.\1\ The bill addresses Westlands' fear that environmental
projects not needing authorization would sail smoothly ahead, while
storage projects lacking Congressional approval would languish; it
includes a provision requiring the Secretary of the Interior to
annually certify that the CALFED Program is progressing in a balanced
manner among all of its components. If the Program is found to be out
of balance, the bill would require that the Secretary revise the
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Parenthetically, we take note of the encouraging results in
recently published engineering reports that are part of the Integrated
Storage Investigation of In-Delta Storage. These reports generally
conclude that the project is technically feasible. We hope that the
CALFED Program will move to the next logical step of preparing a
proposal to develop the project that reflects its benefits and that is
acceptable to all participating parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CALFED Record of Decision has been correctly characterized as
``CALFED's road map.'' The Record of Decision sets forth commitments to
attend to the water needs of all Californians, cities, farmers, and
environmentalists. S. 1097 would approve the CALFED Record of Decision
as the basic policy framework for future state-federal cooperation on
California water management, while not modifying the federal agencies'
obligations to implement federal law.
Finally, S. 1097 provides federal resources for the implementation
of the CALFED Program in a fiscally prudent manner. The bill would
require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut
budget showing the federal funding of each of the different agencies,
and it sets forth a specific list of the projects to be funded and how
much each would receive.
The bill authorizes $102 million for planning and
feasibility studies for water storage projects--and an
additional $77 million for conveyance.
The bill authorizes $100 million for ecological restoration.
This means improving fish passages, restoring streams, rivers
and habitats and improving water quality.
The bill authorizes $153 million for water conservation and
recycling.
The bill authorizes up to $95 million for local California
communities to develop plans and projects to improve their
water supplies.
The bill authorizes $50 million for watershed planning and
assistance.
The bill authorizes $70 million for improved levee
stability.
The bill authorizes $75 million for the environmental water
account, which purchases available water for environmental and
other purposes.
Stated succinctly, S. 1097 was carefully crafted to be consistent
with the balance reflected in the CALFED Record of Decision, and its
implementation will assure continued improvement in water supply, water
quality, and environmental restoration to the benefit of California and
the nation. Westlands encourages the Committee and the Senate to act
quickly to pass this important legislation. Madame Chairman, this
concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you or the members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Birmingham.
Mr. Gastelum, welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF RONALD GASTELUM, CEO, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA
Mr. Gastelum. Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, thank you
for this opportunity.
I'd like to begin by observing that this is not the first
time that Senator Murkowski, from the great State of Alaska,
has played a key leadership role on Calfed. And speaking of
California, we'd like to thank both of them for their
contributions.
I have submitted detailed written testimony in support of
S. 1097, and ask that it be included in the formal record of
today's proceedings.
Senator, I noted that you asked four questions at the
beginning of the hearing. I would like to augment our testimony
and specifically respond to each of those questions.
From a southern California perspective, I'd like to focus
in this hearing on a few key points. California is organized,
forward-thinking, and progressive in its water management
because we've learned from our experience. California, in
general, and southern California, in particular, have stepped
up to the new reality of water management that most of the
country will face as the 21st century proceeds and the pressure
on our water resources becomes more complex. Our example will
be useful to the rest of the country in many ways, and we need
the Federal Government to play its role and do its part.
Today, Metropolitan serves water from the State Water
Project and the Colorado River to almost 18 million people in
urban southern California. And through conservation and an
emphasis on increasing local water resources, we do it with
about the same amount of water that we served to 5 million less
people in the early 1980's. Tomorrow, that number will grow,
and our job is to continue to be reliable in the face of
numerous challenges, including meeting California's commitment
to live with its basic Colorado River water allocation, a
rapidly growing list of new water-quality standards, and real
limitations on the capacity of the State Water Project and the
Central Valley Project to meet their water supply and water-
quality contract obligations to Metropolitan and many others.
From a distance, it may appear that California has
insurmountable problems--natural disasters, economic issues,
our State's unique personality, and others. While these may
certainly present difficulties, there has never been a better
time in our ongoing effort to manage our water quality and
quantity. Never have California's water stakeholders been more
in concert, and never before have we had more tools for
effective management in place. With the completion of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement, after long years of
conflict, we have added to the foundation of living within our
Colorado River apportionment and assuring the other States'
interest. The foundation began with southern California's
integrated resources plan in the early 1990's.
I would submit, as proof of this assertion, more than the
signing of an agreement, the QSA, or growing recognition
throughout the country of our resource plans, I offer the fact
that when the Department of the Interior cut Metropolitan's
Colorado River water supply by 60 percent in January of this
year, we fully complied with the Department's order and met all
customer demands, all during a record year of drought and even
with the added demand of the current firestorm.
We did it because our plan provides for a balanced and
diverse set of resources and facilities to avoid over-reliance
on any single source of supply. And an immediate example of how
this strategy is working is our ability to provide water from
our reservoirs, at no cost to local, State, and Federal
agencies, in the effort to fight the southern California fires.
Tankers are able to get access to three or four of our
reservoirs that have water in them because of this program, to
be able to deal with that emergency.
So on that basis, both the QSA and Calfed reflect today's
new fundamental reality, that water-supply reliability can best
be achieved through a diverse and balanced set of actions,
including storage, conservation, reclamation, and reuse and
desalination, while ensuring environmental protection and
enhancement. This diverse strategy toward developing our water
resources requires cooperation on many levels. Calfed and
partnership between the State of California and the Federal
Government are essential.
S. 1097 authorizes the Federal agencies to participate and
provides Federal resources for implementation of Calfed. Local
agencies in the State of California are investing billions of
dollars, much of it through voter-approved bonds, to assure the
success of Calfed. Unfortunately, the Federal share has lagged
considerably behind. While none of the California stakeholders
expect this to be a Federal program with a majority share
coming from the Federal Government, some Federal funding and
Federal participation are a must. The country will benefit from
this participation, too, in the form of technology advances and
decision-making models that can be applied in other States
facing the same challenge.
Metropolitan is a strong proponent of cost share for
benefits received from water-management programs. The success
of a major complex public process, such as Calfed Program,
rests ultimately in perceptions of fairness, that those who
benefit from the implementation help pay for those actions in
reasonable proportion to the benefits received, and that those
who pay should be assured that they will receive appropriate
benefits.
In southern California today, we have spent billions of
dollars to be able to effect the strategy that Senator
Feinstein outlined, backing off from imports in dry years and
being able to take advantage, consistent with a Calfed Program,
in wet years, and put that in storage. We have increased, in
southern California, our storage from what we had in the early
1990's tenfold, and not a single Federal dollar has been used
in that process. We are fully committed, in California, to pay
our fair share of the costs.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that we do support S. 1097,
and Mr. Calvert's bill in the House. We commend you for holding
this hearing, other Senators and Senate staff that have offered
advice to strengthen this legislation, and we commend Senator
Feinstein for her continued leadership. She is truly recognized
throughout our State for her expertise in water resources and
record of achievement in bringing consensus to solve some of
our most complex and difficult problems.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gastelum follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald Gastelum, CEO,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify regarding S. 1097, the California Bay-Delta
Authorization Act (Act), introduced by Senator Feinstein to implement
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. My name is Ronald Gastelum. I serve as
Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan). Metropolitan is a supplemental water
supplier for the Southern California regional economy. We serve a
population of more than 17 million people and an economy that generates
an annual gross domestic product of nearly $700 billion and provides
about 8 million jobs. Metropolitan has been constructively engaged in
the CALFED process since its conception and we strongly support the
balanced policy direction of CALFED.
METROPOLITAN SUPPORTS S. 1097
Metropolitan strongly supports S. 1097 and urges its passage by
this subcommittee and the full Senate at the earliest possible date.
Recently, California finalized the Quantification Settlement Agreement
(QSA) that after 8 years of arduous negotiations lays a foundation to
live within our long-term apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet of
Colorado River water annually. Similarly, the CALFED Bay-Delta program
is designed to provide essential tools to better manage California's
available water resources. CALFED provides a wide range of modern
management tools to improve water supply reliability, enhance water
quality, restore the environment, and protect the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta.
Both the QSA and CALFED reflect today's new fundamental reality
that water supply reliability can only be achieved through a diverse
and balanced set of management actions that enhance regional management
efforts, improve water quality, and promote environmental restoration.
There are no single project silver bullets in our planning. Rather,
success will be achieved through cooperative efforts based on credible
science to guide decision-making and financial partnerships among the
beneficiaries. Already, urban Southern California meets 53 percent of
its water demands through conservation, water recycling, and local
clean water management programs.
In California, the state government and local public agencies have
committed unprecedented resources to make the CALFED program a success.
In Southern California alone, we are investing more than $8 billion of
our ratepayers' money to implement the Southern California Integrated
Resources Plan, which in turn compliments and helps meet the goals of
the CALFED Program. Similarly, the voters of California have
overwhelmingly approved more than $6 billion in bonds to implement
CALFED and related programs. Among the agricultural and urban public
water supply agencies and in the business community, CALFED and S. 1097
enjoy virtually unanimous support.
But, the federal government has a significant responsibility to
help implement CALFED as well. The federal agencies, including the
Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, have been
partners since 1994 in bipartisan efforts to develop the CALFED Bay-
Delta program. The federal government operates the largest water supply
project in California, the Central Valley Project, and it promulgates
numerous regulations that constrain water supply projects throughout
the state in order to protect the environment. By helping California
better manage its water resources, S. 1097 provides security for all
other western states. It further will provide interstate and
international benefits by increasing populations of salmon and other
anadromous fish on the west coast and by improving habitat for
migratory wildfowl on the Pacific Flyway. Madam Chairman, S. 1097 is
good for California, it is good for the western states, and it is good
for the nation. We urge that it be passed by this subcommittee and the
full Senate as soon as practical.
CALFED IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT
S. 1097 would facilitate the implementation of measures both in the
near-term and longer-term that will provide substantial water supply,
water quality, and environmental benefits. To fully appreciate the
significance of the CALFED Program that S. 1097 would implement, it is
useful to consider the Program in historical context.
Barely a decade ago, the California water management system was in
utter chaos. After decades of neglect and loss of extensive habitat,
key fisheries were in decline. The environmental movement, responding
to precipitous declines in fishery populations, had successfully sought
regulatory protections to stop further loss of habitat and potentially
damaging operational practices of the state's largest water projects,
the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project
(SWP). Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation passed by the California
legislature in 1972 removed from consideration on-stream dam sites in
the north coast mountains of California--delivering a crippling blow to
the 1957 California Water Plan that then provided the backbone strategy
for meeting the long-term water needs of a growing state. Similarly,
passage of federal and state Endangered Species Acts, the Clean Water
Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and other
legislation and regulations began constraining CVP and SWP project
operations in an effort to protect fisheries.
If these actions were beneficial for fisheries and we believe that
they were, they also posed formidable challenges for the numerous
public agencies responsible for providing water supplies to the growing
California economy. By the mid 1990s, more than 2 million acre-feet
(MAF) of project yield had been reallocated from CVP and SWP
contractors through these efforts to restore fisheries. For SWP
contractors, such as Metropolitan, the reliability of project supplies
was far short of the promise in our contracts. While the State had a
contractual obligation to provide full ``Table A'' supplies to SWP
contractors regardless of hydrology, the actual reliability of the SWP
by the mid 1990s was far below contract commitments.
During wetter years, the SWP is still able to provide a fairly
significant amount of water. Based on the historical record and
modeling studies of the California Department of Water Resources,
during the wetter half of water years, the SWP is able to supply 80
percent or more of full contract commitments. But, during the driest
years--especially the driest third of years in the historical record--
actions to protect the environment pose a substantial risk of water
supply shortage for the California economy. Under worst-case
circumstances (a repeat of water year 1977 or 1991), the SWP
contractors expect to receive only a 20 percent supply. During an
extended drought, such as occurred from 1987 to 1992, SWP supplies will
average only about 40 percent of full contract amounts.
Inevitably, the prolonged drought of 1987 to 1992 combined with a
paucity of adequate water management tools resulted in significant
costs for both the California economy and environment. Toward the end
of the drought, water rationing was widespread throughout California
and corresponding economic hardships were significant. Similarly, the
environment was hard-hit and fishery populations declined at alarming
rates. Change was imperative. And we developed that change in large
part through the CALFED Program and by making coordinated local
investments in Southern California in conservation, recycling, storage,
short-term water transfers, and desalination.
ELEMENTS OF THE CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
One of the key challenges of CALFED is to address this fundamental
dilemma: How can we restore water supply reliability for the California
economy and improve water quality while maintaining our commitment to
continued restoration of the environment? The CALFED Record of Decision
(ROD), in essence, provides a blue print for the accomplishment of this
formidable task.
In many respects, Southern California provides a case study of the
effectiveness of the diversified water management strategy embodied in
the ROD. In 1991 a major reduction in SWP supplies resulted in
mandatory rationing and economic disruption in Southern California. In
sharp contrast, Metropolitan has maintained water supply reliability
for the Southern California economy in recent years. Despite a
reduction in SWP supplies in 2001 similar to 1991 and an abrupt decline
in Colorado River supplies this year as well, Metropolitan continued to
meet all the demands of its customers. We have been able to stay
reliable because today we rely on a diversified set of water management
tools and not solely on our contracts for imported water supplies.
Regional demands for imported water have been reduced as a result of
major investments in demand management actions, including water
conservation, recycling, and recovery of contaminated groundwater
basins. We have also benefited from substantial investments in regional
surface and groundwater storage. In both 2001 and 2003, Metropolitan
was able to turn to voluntary water transfers from the Central Valley
for additional affordable increases in supply.
All of these tools are consistent with the policy direction
established in the ROD. If we are to maintain this success, we must act
and act now to assure both near-term and longer-term success for the
CALFED Program.
By the end of this calendar year, the California Bay-Delta
Authority (CBDA) will have before it the first major implementation
package of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Even before the beginning of
the CALFED process, state and local agencies in California were
investing vast sums in local resources to increase our commitment to
conserve, reclaim and reuse, and desalinate water. But, these local
resource measures alone cannot provide sufficient reliability for the
California economy. The near-term CALFED implementation package will
provide investments in the statewide water delivery system, which in
combination with local resource investments can provide reliable water
supplies for California. The near-term package contains elements that
significantly protect water supply reliability, improve water quality,
and provide for the continued restoration of California's environment.
This package marks an enormous positive step in the management of
California's water resources and environment.
To improve water supply reliability, the near-term package contains
elements to improve through-Delta conveyance, including expanding the
capacity of the SWP Banks Pumping Plant and constructing an intertie
between the CVP and SWP systems. The package would also significantly
improve operational efficiencies by better integrating CVP and SWP
operations. These improvements, particularly improvements in through-
Delta conveyance, will increase the ability to store water south-of-
the-Delta during wet periods so that this water can be withdrawn in
significant quantities during the driest years, thereby relieving dry-
year pressure on the Delta and competition with other water users. In
addition, these physical improvements add to the ability to transport
conserved water from voluntary sellers upstream of the Delta to buyers
seeking additional supplies south of the Delta in the increasingly
effective California water market consistent with the policy direction
of CALFED.
To improve water quality, the near-term package is expected to
include several project elements jointly recommended by an historic
coalition of Delta interests and CVP and SWP contractors. These
elements include enforceable standards to protect water heights,
depths, and quality for Delta irrigators; installation of permanent,
operable barriers and other physical improvements in the central and
south Delta; and specific actions to improve Delta water quality for
in-Delta and export water users alike, such as source water quality
improvements at Frank's Tract in the central Delta, agricultural
drainage management in the Delta and the San Joaquin Valley, and steps
to re-circulate water or otherwise increase flows in the San Joaquin
River to improve quality in the South Delta and help resolve dissolved
oxygen problems in the deep-water ship channel near Stockton.
To protect and restore the environment, the near-term package will
include a long-term Environmental Water Account (EWA). The EWA is one
of the most innovative resource management tools developed in the
CALFED Program. The EWA relies on market-driven approaches to provide
water flows for environmental protection and restoration while
providing regulatory certainty for water users. Based on the best
available science, the CALFED near-term implementation package will
provide EWA with adequate assets and financing to assure the continued
restoration of fisheries while we simultaneously implement measures to
increase water supply reliability and enhance water quality.
The near-term package to be implemented in Phase I of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program represents the most significant step to improve the
statewide water management system in a generation. But, over the longer
term, many challenges remain. We still must complete studies of
additional surface storage facilities and move toward implementation of
those projects that make economic and environmental sense. We must take
further steps to improve water quality for both in-Delta and export
water users. We must also assure the long-term financing and success of
the CALFED environmental restoration, Delta levees, and water use
efficiency programs.
THE ROLE OF THE CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORIZATION ACT
Senator Feinstein's proposed S. 1097, the California Bay-Delta
Authorization Act (Act), provides the needed federal participation for
the success of the CALFED Program. The Act approves the CALFED ROD as
the basic policy framework for future state-federal cooperation on
California water management. It authorizes the federal agencies to
participate as voting members in the California Bay-Delta Authority,
the governance mechanism for CALFED created by the California
legislature. Equally important, the Act provides federal resources for
the implementation of the near-term CALFED implementation package and
for the longer-term success of the Program.
For the near-term implementation package, the Act provides modest
funding for increasing the capacity of the SWP Banks pumping plant,
constructing the CVP-SWP intertie, improving agricultural drainage
management, modifying Frank's Tract and other source water quality
actions, and implementing re-circulation projects to increase flows in
the lower San Joaquin River. Over the longer-term, the Act provides for
a federal cost share to complete studies of CALFED surface storage
facilities, maintain water use efficiency performance, continue
environmental restoration activities, reconstruct and enhance Delta
levees, and, importantly, assure that state-of-the-art science supports
all CALFED decisions and activities. The bottom line is that the Act
has been carefully crafted through a bi-partisan effort to be
consistent with the balance reflected in the CALFED ROD and its
implementation will assure continued improvement in water supply, water
quality, and environmental restoration to the benefit of California,
the western states, and the nation.
THE BENEFICIARY PAYS PRINCIPLE
Finally, I would like to close this testimony with some
observations regarding the beneficiary pays principle. Metropolitan is
a strong proponent of this principle. The ultimate success of a major,
complex, public process like the CALFED Bay-Delta rests in no small way
on perceptions of fairness that those who benefit from the
implementation of program actions help pay for those actions in
proportion to the benefits received. An important corollary to this
principle is that those who pay should be assured that they will
receive commensurate benefits so they will participate in the cost
sharing required to implement program actions. But, we are also
concerned that some will twist the beneficiary pays principle to
undermine support for S. 1097.
It is extremely important to recognize that local agencies and the
state of California are investing billions of dollars to assure the
success of the CALFED Program. In Southern California, Metropolitan and
its member agencies are in the process of investing more than $8
billion to implement the Southern California Integrated Resources
Program. We have set a course for our ratepayers to pay $2 billion to
reclaim, reuse, and desalinate brackish water and ocean water; another
nearly $1 billion to implement water conservation measures; $2 billion
to implement the QSA; and $3 billion to construct more than 2.5 million
acre-feet of additional regional surface and groundwater storage
capacity. Similarly, the California voters have overwhelmingly approved
more than $6 billion in public bonds to finance CALFED and related
activities: $1 billion in Proposition 204 in 1996 primarily for
environmental restoration and another $2 billion in Proposition 13 in
2000 and more than $3 billion in Proposition 50 in 2002 for water
supply, water quality, and other CALFED related projects.
Unfortunately, the federal share of financing CALFED has lagged
considerably behind the local and state shares. To date, based on
CALFED data, during the program's first three years, the federal
government accounts for only about 9 percent of CALFED funds and this
share is rapidly declining each year. Metropolitan believes that S.
1097 provides a reasonable and fair federal share of CALFED financing
for the next few years. S. 1097 helps fund the near-term implementation
package that will provide considerable benefits at a very modest cost.
It provides funds for long-term efforts to improve water efficiency,
restore the environment, and improve watersheds. Many of these publicly
beneficial activities cannot pencil out based solely on local costs and
benefits and federal funds are essential for their implementation.
With regard to larger infrastructure investments, such as
additional surface storage, S. 1097 provides $102 million primarily to
complete feasibility studies. We submit that this is a sound approach.
The CALFED ROD concludes that additional surface and groundwater
storage capacity is required to maintain balance between water supply,
water quality, and the environment over the long-term. However, until
feasibility studies are completed, beneficiaries are identified, and
cost sharing agreements are developed, it is not possible to determine
which specific projects should proceed and how. S. 1097 makes no final
commitment and does not provide sufficient funds to construct any
project, it merely provides the resources to answer key questions so
that we can determine in the future how to best add to California's
water storage capacity and meet our water quality and environmental
goals.
Given the benefits to the federal CVP project, the contributions of
federal regulations to the problems being remedied, the interstate and
international benefits of some CALFED actions, and the general public
benefits of other CALFED actions, Metropolitan believes that S. 1097
provides an effective and fiscally appropriate vehicle to enable
California to manage water resources in a manner that will provide
long-term stability in the Western United States. We commend Senator
Feinstein for her leadership in introducing S. 1097.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may
have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Guy, your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. GUY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Guy. I thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein.
Let me also join the chorus in admiring the work that you
all have done, and particularly the patience that you've had,
Senator Feinstein. But I think, more important than the
patience, we sure admire your perseverance and your
determination, and please retain those characteristics, because
the California water community needs you, and California as a
whole needs you.
I represent Northern California Water Association. It's the
area north of the Bay-Delta. It's the area--it's largely a
rural area, but, of course, a large bulk of the water supply in
California comes from this particular area. This is not just a
normal rural area, it's a combination of agriculture, it is
integrated with a series of at least five national wildlife
refuges, many State wildlife management areas.
You have what are now considered some of the world-renowned
salmon restoration projects in this region. And this is all
integrated into a water-management program that I think is very
important, and I believe that S. 1097 will help facilitate that
and continue the progress that we have made in the Sacramento
Valley to advance this integrated program. And for that reason,
we support S. 1097 enthusiastically.
This integrated program will not only meet the needs in the
local rural areas--again, for farms, for refuges, for the
fish--but it will also, in our view, if we can manage the
resource properly, it can also meet needs in the Bay-Delta as
well as needs in the rest of the State. And this has led, this
integrated program, to several partnerships that I think are
worth noting.
I noted, Senator Feinstein, one of your three critical
points was partnerships, and you mentioned the State and
Federal partnerships, and those are, needless to say, very
important, but there's also a series of local partnerships that
have evolved that I think are really giving Calfed a large
boost, and one of those, most notably, is the Sacramento Valley
Water Management Program, which resolved the so-called Phase 8
proceedings before the Bay-Delta.
I have several of my partners here at the table today that
have exerted tremendous leadership to make this happen, and
it's really the first time in the State of California, I
believe, that North and South have worked together to, again,
meet these ideals of meeting the water needs of all of the
different factions. It's also important because it's a rural/
urban partnership, which is very difficult. And we are working
very well together, and there's a lot of work to be done, but
we have started to do that. And I believe that Calfed, the Bay-
Delta Authority, and S. 1097 are all very important in helping
us advance those partnerships, and vice versa. So we sure laud
the bill.
And, of course, all of the things that are in your bill,
whether it be water conservation, water-use efficiency, whether
it be the fish-passage improvements, the water-quality
improvements, and then, of course, surface storage, including
Sites Reservoir and enlarged Shasta, we believe, are all
critical components to advancing, not only this integrated
program, but the partnerships that are so critical to making
this process work. So, again, we think the bill is very good in
that regard.
I will also say that I believe the balance feature that you
mentioned, I believe, is really the key to making this program
work; and not only balance across the different program areas,
as mentioned, but I think the provision in the bill that talks
about balance across geographic regions is very important,
because water tends to be very parochial in nature. People look
at their own particular region. And it doesn't matter, in some
ways, if all the program elements are balanced, if a particular
region does not feel that they are not being benefitted. And I
think that that is a real key provision in this particular
bill.
With that said, I do think that there are some coordination
issues that could be improved upon. I think Tom Birmingham
touched on some of those, but I think improved coordination
amongst the Federal and State agencies, as well as a
recognition that the Calfed Program is a whole and must proceed
as a whole, I think, is really important as we move forward.
So I will close in just saying, again, we support S. 1097,
congratulate you and the continued efforts of Senator Feinstein
and also Congressman Calvert across the building, and look
forward to working with you two to make it work.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guy follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Guy, Executive Director,
Northern California Water Association, Sacramento, CA
Dear Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is David
Guy. I am the Executive Director of the Northern California Water
Association (NCWA). NCWA supports S. 1097 and strongly believes that,
with the recommendations described below, this legislation will help
provide water and environmental security for Northern California and
the rest of the state.
NCWA is a geographically diverse organization, extending from
California's Coast Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and nearly 180
miles from Redding to Sacramento. Our members rely on the waters of the
Sacramento, Feather, Yuba and American Rivers, smaller tributaries and
groundwater to irrigate nearly 850,000 acres that produce every type of
food and fiber grown in the region. Many of our members also provide
water supplies to state and federal wildlife refuges, and much of this
land serves as important seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl,
shorebirds and other wildlife.
We welcome the opportunity to provide the Northern California
perspective on water supply security and to present both the
opportunities and challenges we now face. The Subcommittee's interest
in California water security is appropriate and very timely given the
importance of a successful resolution to the environmental and water
supply problems in the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta and San
Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). The Bay-Delta is a tremendous economic and
environmental resource to California and the nation, and there is much
at stake in how we implement the numerous ecosystem restoration and
water management actions.
Northern California water users have committed to help improve
water supply reliability, water quality and environmental benefits. The
Sacramento Valley's initiative and effort to help protect salmon and
other aquatic species is unprecedented and is now recognized as one of
the most exciting and progressive voluntary salmon restoration efforts
in the United States. Today, more than a dozen NCWA members,
representing over 500,000 acres of irrigable land, have either
completed or will soon be constructing screens to prevent fish
entrainment at their diversions. Many NCWA members have also initiated
far-reaching efforts to refurbish fish ladders, construct siphons,
remove dams, create habitat conservation plans and implement other
habitat improvement projects to enhance the environment, while at the
same time improving water supply reliability.
Additionally, NCWA and the Northern California water users have
embarked on an integrated water management program that has broad
support from water suppliers and local governments throughout Northern
California. This integrated program includes these fish passage
improvements (fish screens and siphons), groundwater management,
evaluation of the Sites off-stream reservoir, flood protection, water
use efficiency programs, potential expanded storage in Lake Shasta,
intra-regional water transfers and exchanges, and watershed management.
During the past year this integrated program led to an
unprecedented water rights settlement among water users throughout
California. This settlement, now known as the Sacramento Valley Water
Management Program, and the ensuing integrated water management
program, avoided the extremely contentious Phase 8 Bay-Delta water
rights proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). The parties to the agreement include NCWA, the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the federal
contractors in the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, the
State Water Contractors, and Contra Costa Water District. This
proceeding would have pitted these parties from throughout the state
against each other. This integrated program will now serve as the heart
of a regional strategy for the Sacramento Valley.
The Sacramento Valley Water Management Program and the integrated
water management program focus on meeting the water supply demands
within the Sacramento Valley during all year types, both now and into
the future. Northern California water users believe that, once the full
demands within the Sacramento Valley are met, this integrated program
will help make water supplies available for use in and beyond the Bay-
Delta to meet water quality standards, and provide for export water
users in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, the Central
Coast, and as assets for the Environmental Water Account (EWA) and
other environmental programs.
Although there are many components in the integrated water
management plan for the Sacramento Valley, the components involving
surface storage draw the most attention and deserve further
elaboration. Sites reservoir and enlarged Shasta are important parts of
water management in the Sacramento Valley and are critical to
addressing and solving CALFED problems. We believe that a great mistake
will be made and an opportunity will be lost if the feasibility of a
storage project (like Sites) is viewed in a traditional fashion, with
the ``yield'' of the reservoir merely divided up among a pre-identified
group of ``beneficiaries.''
We have an opportunity to view Sites in a manner different from the
traditional storage reservoir. This stems, in part, from its location
within or adjacent to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and
districts within the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA). Initially,
this allows the reservoir to be filled through the conveyance of water
into the reservoir pursuant to a wheeling agreement with GCID for use
of GCID's Main Canal and/or potentially through a wheeling agreement
with the BOR or others for use of the Tehama-Colusa Canal.
In addition, how one operates Sites should take into consideration
opportunities presented by the fact that it can be integrated with
local interests within the Sacramento Valley so that it is operated and
managed in conjunction with local interests' direct diversion water
rights, other surface water resources, including storage rights within
Shasta Reservoir, and groundwater resources. Proceeding with integrated
water management will provide direct and indirect benefits. These
direct and indirect benefits include securing independent, reliable and
certain supplies of irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I) and
environmental water of suitable quality for reasonable beneficial uses
by local interests within the Sacramento Valley. They will also provide
benefits to the environment, including improvements in Delta water
quality, the availability of water for the EWA, in management
flexibility that will be made available in the Sacramento Valley, and a
more dependable water supply for water users within the Delta as well
as water users south of the Delta.
The ability to operate in a flexible manner to maximize system-wide
benefits is not unique to GCID or the TCCA; it is a shared ability that
could be exercised by other entities within the Sacramento Valley.
From the very beginning of the CALFED process, indeed, before the
Record of Decision (ROD) was issued, Northern California interests have
been fairly clear that, in general, we were not responsible, in fact or
in law, for the problems that exist in the Bay-Delta. In our view,
those problems were created by others. As a consequence, we can only
support solutions that solve problems in a manner that does not harm
Northern California interests. We cannot support and will oppose
solutions that seek to solve problems created by others at the expense
of Northern California.
I hasten to add that from the onset, Northern California has
nonetheless been willing to work with CALFED to seek solutions that
meet the test of no redirected adverse impacts while advancing
substantially actions and programs that would improve the Bay-Delta. We
are still willing to participate in these programs and, in fact, have
initiated actions that, when completed, will substantially advance the
CALFED goals.
I have read and am familiar with S. 1097 as well as with the CALFED
ROD. I have followed CALFED actions and activities closely since August
28, 2000. With the foregoing in mind, I first offer comments on the
program activities in S. 1097 followed by comments and suggestions on
the administration and management of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
I. Integrated Water Management (Sec. 3(c) (3)(F).)
As discussed above, Northern California has been at the forefront
of integrated water management and supports the provisions of S. 1097
to advance this cause. This integrated program for the Sacramento
Valley will help ``carry out Stage 1 of the Record of Decision.''
II. Specific Program Activities
As previously mentioned, the integrated program for the Sacramento
Valley contains several important components that will help advance the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. This includes:
Fish Passage Improvements (Sec. 3(c)(3)(G)(iii).)
Proposed Sites reservoir and enlarged Shasta
(Sec. 3(c)(A)(ii)(I).)
Water Use Efficiency and System Improvement Projects
(Sec. 3(c)(3)(c).)
Water Quality Improvements (Sec. 3(c)(3)(I)
Water Transfers (Sec. 3(c)(3)(D).)
Enlarged Shasta (Sec. 3(c)(A)(i)(I).)
Watershed Management (Sec. 3(c)(3)(H).)
III. Administration and Management
With respect to the administration and management of the CALFED
program, we offer the following suggestions.
A. Balance (Sec. (5)(b); 3(b))--The concept of ``balance'' is
critical to a successful CALFED. S. 1097 deals with this issue by first
requiring the Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, to annually
certify that the Program is ``progressing in a balanced manner which
allows all program elements to be advanced.'' Without these types of
procedures there is little question in my mind that certain parts of
the program (i.e., water supply storage and conveyance projects) will
lag behind other CALFED programs and projects and, indeed, may never be
completed. In addition to program balance, the provision in subpart
(b)(9) is critical to assure that there is ``progress in achieving
benefits in all geographic regions covered by the Program.''
B. Administration of Activities--There has been a fairly large
disconnect between the whole purpose and need for CALFED and the way
regulatory agencies approach their missions.
The CALFED program is multi-dimensional in nature and not only
evaluates, on a programmatic level, numerous alternative approaches
but, in light of the significant water related problems at issue, in
fact incorporates multiple elements which in the normal context might
be considered, in themselves, as alternatives, one to the other. In
other words, the problems dealt with by CALFED are so significant that
looking at one option as if it were in opposition to another is
counter-productive to meeting CALFED goals.
While all of the planning and actions associated with CALFED
contemplate this integrated approach toward water management,
regulatory agencies, particularly the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, adhere to an overly
rigid application of, for example, the Clean Water Act section
404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. This requires one to view each of the
CALFED potential solutions not as an integrated whole, but rather as
alternatives, one to the other. As a consequence, the ability to
maximize benefits through full-integrated water management is lost in
favor of rigid analyses developed to deal with situations dissimilar to
CALFED.
The law itself does not require this rigid application of
regulatory standards. However, it probably requires specific
Congressional direction and guidance (contemplated in existing law) to
make certain that regulatory review occurs in an appropriate fashion.
Section 3(b) alludes to this quest for a fully integrated water
management solution that will not be hampered by an overly rigid
regulatory mind-set. This goal might be further advanced through
additional language in Section 4 such as the following:
``Pursuant to the provisions of 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344(r), information
of the effects, if any, of a discharge of dredged or fill material,
including consideration of the guidelines developed under 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1344(b)(1), will be included in the environmental impact statement
undertaken pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
any CALFED project or program requiring federal authorization and such
environmental impact statement will be submitted to Congress prior to
the authorization of the project or the appropriation of funds for the
construction of the project.''
C. Agency Coordination (Section 4(a))--A fundamental problem that
was identified early in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary process was
the multiple statutory, regulatory and agency coverage (overlap) of
critical issues. Indeed, the whole concept of CALFED was borne out of
the unintended adverse consequences of uncoordinated activities
conducted by multiple agencies seeking to address the same problem.
In a critical way CALFED has, in fact, worked to focus attention on
a coordinated set of goals and actions. Nonetheless, an important
element still must be addressed. While agencies work, in part, within
CALFED, at critical times they remove themselves from that process and
retreat to their individual regulatory processes. Thus, critical CALFED
programs and projects are still required to scale multiple,
duplicative, regulatory processes which add costs and time to that
which would otherwise be necessary and which consequently challenge the
feasibility of any proposed project or program.
The solution, we believe, is not in asking any regulatory body to
abrogate its responsibility to another or in the modification of any
underlying statutory program. Instead, we propose a ``regulatory
streamlining'' or ``regulatory coordination'' process in which all
project elements or a program are evaluated at one time and, in this
context, all regulatory requirements are also made known (along with
mitigation measures) at one time. In this manner duplicative and/or
inconsistent regulatory mandates can be immediately identified,
evaluated and dealt with; and a project or program proponent can
understand, at that time, what its total requirements/obligations will
be. In this way intelligent decisions on how to proceed or how not to
proceed can be made with the knowledge of all relevant facts.
This process is not unique. The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 791a et seq., provides for similar procedures associated with the
licensing under that Act. Regulatory and other relevant agencies, under
the provisions of the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) are
required to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
the project proponents of all of the regulatory conditions that must be
included within a license. FERC, in turn, must include in any license
issued under the Federal Power Act appropriate conditions based upon
what is provided by those other regulatory agencies. See 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 805j(1); Mine Reclamation Corporation, et al. v. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, et al., 30 Fed.3d 1519, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
There is no absolute veto of any regulatory requirement, but merely an
``all cards up'' understanding of what will need to be done in order to
proceed with a project.\1\ Not only does this save a great deal of
time, but it also allows the project proponents to make an intelligent
business decision about whether and how to proceed. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 803j(2) does provide FERC with a process and
criteria that it must follow if it determines that recommended
conditions will be inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accomplish these purposes, we propose language such as the
following to add to Sec. 4(a):
``The Secretary working with the Governor shall develop a
regulatory coordination and streamlining program in which all permits,
licenses or other approvals associated with the permitting approval of
projects under this Act will take place. This regulatory coordination
or streamlining program shall insure that all Federal and California
agencies' respective regulatory programs will take place at one time
and that they will be coordinated in a manner that reduces or
eliminates process- or substantive-related duplication and
inconsistencies, thereby reducing costs and time that would otherwise
be required; Provided, that nothing herein is intended nor should it be
construed to affect the substantive regulatory requirements that may be
applicable.''
As in many situations, the problem faced by project proponents is
not the need to comply with appropriate environmental obligations but
the problem created by multiple, duplicate or inconsistent regulations.
This problem is particularly troublesome in a situation as complex as
the one presented by CALFED. The type of language proposed here, while
not fully addressing all of the potential problems, will go a long way
in remedying the situation that otherwise exists.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the CALFED
program and the important water issues facing California.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I appreciate the comments from each of you on the panel
here today, and thank you for joining us here at the committee.
I have individual questions that are more specific to each
of you that will be presented so that you can respond in
writing. But just a few general questions, and I'll just
present them to you as a panel, and if you can give me your
very brief comments.
But recognizing that you are the panel of stakeholders and
from certainly different interests, whether they be
metropolitan or rural or north or south, I'd like to hear just
very briefly and very succinctly what aspects of this
legislation are most important to your specific organization.
Mr. Wright, let's put you on the hot-seat first.
Mr. Wright. Sure. Speaking from the perspective of the
agencies themselves, the number one issue is to cement the
State/Federal partnership and to avoid a perception that this
is a State-driven program and that the agencies aren't a
hundred percent with us in putting this thing together.
Money's important, absolutely. But first comes the
commitment to the program itself. So that's number one.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Ms. McPeak.
Ms. McPeak. The business community would echo that. Without
the Federal Government being a full partner, there is
continuing uncertainty and the lack of coalescing of all the
agencies working together. That spells probably unreliability
in our future water supply. The business community fully
embraces all components of Calfed. We know we have to move on
all of them together. That will be possible only if all of the
Federal and State agencies are at the table. Federal agencies
need to have the enthusiastic endorsement, reaffirmation of
Congress.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Graff.
Mr. Graff. I guess I would answer your question this way,
that the matter that is of most concern to us is that
additional commitments of water to users, particularly not paid
for by users, not come at the expense of the environments that
have just recently begun to respond to the benefits of
congressional legislation and other actions past. Let me just
say that those environments should include the Trinity River,
which is in my written remarks, but I did not mention in my
oral testimony.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Birmingham.
Mr. Birmingham. The issue that has been critical to
agricultural water districts on the west side of the San
Joaquin Valley is balanced implementation of the Calfed
Program. There are three provisions in S. 1097 that will
promote balanced implementation of the program, in fact, will
mandate it. First, the Secretary is required to annually
certify--the Secretary of the Interior is required to annually
certify that the programs are moving forward in a balanced
manner; and if not, revise the schedule for implementation.
Second, S. 1097 contains a provision that requires that the
Secretary report on progress being made on each of the elements
of the program, including water-supply reliability, water-
quality improvement, levy restoration, and ecosystem
restoration.
And then, finally, the provisions of the bill that
prescribe how much will be spent for each program, how much
will be authorized for each program, will ensure that as the
program moves forward, it will do so in a balanced manner, each
element of the program being linked to others. And so I think
that those are the three provisions of the bill that, from our
perspective, are most important.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Gastelum.
Mr. Gastelum. As I've looked at this bill on a number of
occasions, I've thought, well, there might some improvements
here or there that I would like to make from the perspective of
urban southern California. But we are very pleased with this
bill, because it represent progress. It represents the
principles that we most want to see happen in California--
cooperation, sound science, interagency governmental
cooperation.
What we like, in terms of what would happen for the good in
southern California particularly, is the water-quality
improvements that will come with the conveyance actions, with
the science-based decisions on moving water at particular times
of the year that has less impact on the environment and allows
us to move water into storage. All of these things are possible
under Calfed, and, in particular, this legislation.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Guy.
Mr. Guy. I believe the most important aspect of the bill is
the integrated nature of the components, and I think it's
important that the bill spells out all of the different
components in enough detail that people in California can see
exactly what is expected of this program. And I think it's that
integrated nature of all the separate components, whether it be
water-use efficiency, surface storage, off-stream storage,
whether it be fish-passage improvements, water-quality
improvements, all of that in one package, and making sure that
there's balance across those areas and across the geographic
regions, is important to the bill.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate the distilling in at least
a couple of sentences, or maybe a couple of paragraphs or less,
so I'm going to ask you one more.
You've told me what you like best about it. In your
opinion, is there anything that needs to be included, added?
Mr. Gastelum, you've pretty much said you like it as it is. But
in the opinion--in your opinion or that of the organizations
that you represent, what needs to be added to make it work for
your perspective, for your group of stakeholders?
Mr. Guy.
Mr. Guy. Well, my written comments, which I hope are in the
record, spell out a couple of suggestions on that, and I think
they really get categorized with respect to regulatory and
agency coordination. And I think several fairly simple
provisions that, again, recognize the Calfed, as a whole, that
parts of the program are not alternatives to other parts of the
program, and that the legislation recognize that the Calfed
Program is a whole and that all of the programs need to be
implemented simultaneously, together--or I guess that's
redundant--but together in a integrated fashion. I think that
some language would be very helpful there, and it would not be
anything significant.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Gastelum, want to add anything?
Mr. Gastelum. I would. I think that if we could add
anything more to this bill, it would be to provide perhaps
stronger and clearer direction to the Federal agencies to
participate in this process. So, money aside, if we could get
their full attention and their decision-making process in
coordination with the State, that would be something to be
desired.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Birmingham.
Mr. Birmingham. I don't disagree with what Mr. Gastelum
stated, although I think that one of the questions that has
been raised is, why do we need Calfed authorization if the
agencies are already authorized to engage in most of the
programs that are described? And I think that what Mr. Gastelum
just stated is the reason that we need to have a specific
Calfed authorization.
Frankly, I don't think that there is anything that I would
suggest should be added. In drafting the bill, Senator
Feinstein and her staff were diligent about reaching out to
every interest group in the California water community and
engaging with them to make sure that their concerns were
addressed. I don't think that there's anything in this--I think
I can safely say that there are things in the Calfed Program
that everyone--that somebody would dislike--there's something
in there for everybody to dislike, but there's also something
in there for everybody to love.
And I think that's part of the beauty of the program. And
the beauty of this particular bill is that it is the product of
a tremendous effort to ensure that the interests of all of the
communities were addressed in its crafting.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Graff, do you agree?
Mr. Graff. No. I don't think I do. I think I'm going to go
back to testimony of Mr. Raley and just get right to the guts
of it. I mean, his first major point here in his statement of
the administration's concerns is to say, ``As mentioned,
appropriations are unlikely to approve--to approach the $880
million envisioned for stage one. Balanced in the program can
only be achieved with a realistic expectation of Calfed
appropriations.''
And in light of a scaled-back program, both in terms of
Federal dollars, and even more so in terms of user dollars, we
need to figure out, before we go forward, whether the
additional commitments of water that the contractors agreed to
at Napa are really going to happen at the expense of the
environment. I think that's the question we have to answer
first.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. McPeak.
Ms. McPeak. Unreliability and uncertainty are the death
knell for investment. So if we're looking to economic recovery
and continuing to retain the employers in California, and in
this country, as a matter of fact, then there's got to be
certainty within a regulatory framework. And we would never
second-guess Senator Feinstein or this committee on getting to
the bill. It's probably based on all that we know, as good as
it can possibly be.
Going back a few years, when I sat and we, at the Bay-Delta
Advisory Committee, advised on a governance structure for
Calfed, there were a few principles that we strongly advocated
and that the business community wanted to see, and that is that
everybody had to be at the table. If you've got some agencies
who have the ability to absent themselves and do not understand
that it is the policy and the presumption of the Federal
Government that they will all work together and work in
partnership with the States agencies, then that just is greater
uncertainty and unreliability in that regulatory framework. It
will be a dampening force on or factor for attracting
investment in California.
Therefore, what we think would be very salutatory, if it's
possible, is, as Mr. Gastelum has said, strengthen the language
as a directive and imperative to all of those Federal agencies,
that they are to participate in full faith, at the highest
level, continuously, introduce a sense of urgency about
implementation, and that there must be consultation among them
in any--before they take independent action under their
authorities.
In other words, that they've got authority to exercise, and
it's going to impact any aspect of the Calfed implementation
program, that they must, in fact, consult one another around
that table before taking independent action. I cannot tell you
how beneficial that would be, nor how much of a shift in
paradigm as to how the business community usually experiences
government.
There is no substitute for leadership. That's what this
bill is about. It's about creating the momentum that Senator
Feinstein talked about and registering, very loud and clear,
that the Federal Government is a full partner in the Calfed
implementation. It's a new era.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. I'll just say briefly, because, of course, at
the program we don't take specific positions on bills; we leave
that to our State and Federal administrations. I should add,
though, that we did, at the request of Senator Feinstein, work
very closely with her staff and other members to make sure that
the bill was fully consistent with the Calfed plan.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate your responses.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I
think those were very good questions.
Mr. Graff, whom I've known for at least 30 years, as well--
matter of fact, I knew him when he had a little more hair on
the top.
Mr. Graff. That's a long time ago.
Senator Feinstein. On the issue of beneficiary pays, I
would call the attention to page 34, the Record of Decision,
and read one sentence, ``A fundamental philosophy of the Calfed
Program is that costs should, to the extent possible, be paid
by the beneficiaries of the program actions.''
We have replicated this in the bill, on page 19--actually,
beginning on page 18--with this language, ``Any feasibility
studies''--because most of their concern revolves around the
cost of the storage--``Any feasibility studies completed for
storage projects as a result of this act shall include
identification of project benefits and beneficiaries and a
cost-allocation plan consistent with the beneficiaries pay
provisions of the Record Of Decision.''
There is beneficiaries-pay language in this bill.
Obviously, we can't determine what it is. Calfed would have to
do that at a later time. But that is the full intent, and I
would hope that the record--and I know the record will reflect
that.
With respect to the Napa River issue, Mr. Wright, let me
ask you this question. Mr. Graff claims that the Napa proposal
will result in about one million acre-feet of water exported
from the delta. It's important to note, at the outset, that the
Napa meetings produced only a proposal, as I understand it, for
coordinated system operation, and the appropriate agencies are
making decisions on delta pumping levels through a separate
process.
Besides the caveat that no final decisions have been made
yet, didn't the State Department of Water Resources estimate
that--just that week, that only about 250,000 acre-feet of
water would be exported from the delta? And didn't the State
give this estimate at an Assembly Parks and Wildlife Committee
hearing?
Mr. Wright. That's correct, Senator. And in addition to
that, of course, as you, yourself, said, it's one part of a
comprehensive package and will not move forward until the whole
package does.
Senator Feinstein. Good. So I'm glad we settled that one.
Now, you know, one of the things that I think we are all
thinking about is the amount, Madam Chairman. There is actually
a lot of money in the base, before we even start on the amount.
So the $880 million really is not reflective of net new Federal
dollars. And I think one key might be, how do we tailor the
language so that it only includes the Federal share? And what
should that be? Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright. Well, let me say again, in response to
Interior's comments, it is true, as you, yourself, stated it,
that the vast majority of things that we do at the program is
to coordinate agency programs that are already authorized. It
is a coordination effort. There are a handful of things that
Assistant Secretary Raley mentioned that lack authorization,
but most of what we need to do is authorized.
Having said that, though, you've heard from just about all
the witnesses here on the importance of balance and the
importance of a comprehensive program. So if you were to limit
the bill just to those very small handful of things that aren't
authorized, then you're not going to reassure folks here that
you're authorizing a balanced, comprehensive plan.
Somehow you're going to have to strike a balance between
having the bill be comprehensive enough to send that message,
but not imply, from a financial perspective, that you're
authorizing a massive new program, because you're not. You're
authorizing the coordination----
Senator Feinstein. Yeah, well, let me stop you here. We
can't appropriate any money--and we've been doing it, and
they're not going to do it anymore--without an authorization.
That's why the authorization connected to a dollar amount
becomes so important.
Mr. Wright. Right.
Senator Feinstein. Now, if you could tell me--because we
worked the $880 million. You know, this didn't come out of the
sky. It really came actually, from your suggestions. Can you
make any suggestions today based on the fact that the State,
through bond funds, actually has a lot of the funding that it
would require to be used, if it's possible to reduce that
amount and still carry out, in the balanced way, the program we
contemplate?
Mr. Wright. We will--as Bennett said earlier--we will work
with him over the next several weeks. I don't want to get out
in front of either the Federal or State side on a budgetary
question. But it's obviously a legitimate question, and we need
to work with both of them to give you that answer.
Senator Feinstein. If it's possible for you to stay and do
it now--you know, the session's going on, and I think we need
to get a bill, and I think we need to have closure on that
amount so that it is lean and mean, with respect to--and we all
know the Federal deficit situation--but that there is a
commitment to follow through on it.
Mr. Wright. I would be happy to talk to Interior and the
new administration about doing that.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Raley said that he'd be available
effective next week. If you could possibly make yourself
available----
Mr. Wright. I can be available whenever you need me to.
That would not be a problem.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, that would be terrific.
Mr. Gastelum, you're very smart, you run a huge water
district. Focus for a minute on the beneficiary-pays principle.
And you mentioned it in your comments. Can you elaborate more
on how you think this principle could work for Calfed?
Mr. Gastelum. As you correctly pointed out, this is
embedded in Calfed today. There is no formula that has been
established in Calfed or elsewhere on beneficiaries pay. So
what we have, I believe, in California, is a commitment that
we're going to figure that out. We believe that it relates to
cost share, or something that you would relate to on the
Federal level in a very real way and something you do all the
time, you expect cost-sharing on a local level.
So we are expecting, in southern California, that in any
particular project there will be some share of Federal dollars
in the Calfed program, some share of State dollars--and that
may be general fund, it could be bond funds--and some share of
local, and that the locals, as beneficiaries, will be expected,
however, they finance it locally, to contribute a portion.
What the formula is on how you do that will end up being a
part of the process. I'd like to say that we had a formula.
We'll probably be making some law, if you--or setting some
precedents in California that will be useful for others who are
confronting this, but we are clearly committed to do that in
California.
Senator Feinstein. So let me--and let's take one of the
storage projects for example--let's just take the Shasta Raise.
And, Mr. Wright and others, you might want to chime in. I would
assume that if that proves to be cost-effective and feasible,
and meets environmental NEPA concerns, that there will then be
an allocation of cost also that will go down through the system
for all those that draw water out of that Shasta Dam. Is that a
fair assumption to make?
Mr. Gastelum. I think that's right. And in southern
California's case, as an example, if there was an increment of
water available that could be allocated to southern California,
and southern California was unwilling to pay for that water,
additional water supply, as beneficiaries, we would not expect
to receive that water. But if we were asking to receive it, I
would expect we'd pay for our allocated share.
Senator Feinstein. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Mr. Birmingham. Well, the example that you used is raising
Sites. In fact, the--I'm sorry, raising Shasta--in fact,
reclamation law would require an analysis of the costs and
beneficiaries, and then allocate the costs of that particular
project. We anticipate that, for other storage facilities,
including the Sites or storage on----
Senator Feinstein. Upper San Joaquin?
Mr. Birmingham [continuing]. On Upper San Joaquin, there
would be a similar analysis.
Mr. Graff. Senator, let me--I would have said nothing,
because I think you questions about beneficiary-pays are very
helpful to finally pinning down some of the specifics on this
that have been missing for so long. But when Mr. Birmingham
brings up reclamation law, one of the big problems to date, the
reason we are in these enormous difficulties, is that as a
result of past reclamation law, both legal compliance and not,
we have had users who have paid minimally on Federal and--paid
back minimally on Federal investment, and we're not in an era
where we can continue that. If we use the old reclamation-law
formulas to build massively expensive projects, basically
that's the taxpayers paying, not the users paying.
Mr. Birmingham. And I could respond to that by observing
that under a public law enacted in 1986, all of the capital
costs of the Central Valley Project must be, and will be,
repaid by 2030. And under reclamation law, capital costs of the
project must be repaid within 40 years.
I wouldn't disagree with Mr. Graff's comment that we
haven't paid as much as we should have paid at this point, but
all of those costs will be repaid by the date prescribed by
Congress.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I think that's very helpful.
Mr. Graff. But without interest.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I think that clarifies that.
I want to just say one thing about Mrs. McPeak. She booked
two red-eye flights to get here--one to get here tonight and
one to go home tomorrow. And as one who does the cross-
continental, there is nothing worse, except if you live in
Alaska, maybe.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. Thank you for being here.
Senator Feinstein. I'd just like you to know we very much
appreciate it.
Mr. Guy, let me ask this question. You mentioned briefly in
your testimony how Sites Reservoir will have benefits greater
than traditional storage projects. Could you elaborate on this
point?
Mr. Guy. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
Sites Reservoir, in my view, is really water storage for
the 21st century, because it does provide the multiple benefits
that I think you're suggesting. First, it's off-stream storage.
It's in the coast range, on the west side of the valley, in
about as good a place as you could find for off-stream storage.
It will be fiscally sound, to the extent that it will utilize
the existing conveyance facilities that are already in place.
And it really provides the benefits that I think you're asking
about, because you integrate it with other supplies within the
region.
What that allows you to do is, it allows you to have
additional water, or water in the river, during--in the
Sacramento river, which, of course, is the primary river in the
Bay-Delta system, during times of the year when that water will
benefit salmon, steelhead. It can provide water-quality
benefits in the delta. It can provide water for the
environmental water account by being upstream of the delta and
by essentially making that water available during critical
times. You can essentially control the water to the point where
you can provide these multiple benefits. And it's not a
traditional yield. It provides you tremendous flexibility, by
being upstream of the delta, to meet all of the various demands
that are called for in the Calfed Program.
Finally, it really provides the opportunity for urban/rural
partnerships. And, I think, building on Secretary Raley's
comments, it really allows the rural/urban folks to work
together in a partnership manner, I think, as we move forward
long term.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I'd just like to thank everybody.
It's a long haul. I think we have a fine Chairman. Hopefully,
we'll be able to move this bill.
What I'd like to do, if you would agree to it, Senator, is
sit down with you and Mr. Raley and Mr. Wright after they
finish their joint deliberations on the funding part of it, and
see exactly where we are, and then hopefully be able to move
the bill.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we would look forward to working
with you, Senator Feinstein, on this. The staff of this
subcommittee will be happy to sit down and, as you say, once
there's been an opportunity for you, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Raley
to work through some of those issues. We will be working
forward.Senator Feinstein. Great, thank you very much. I
appreciate it. Thank everybody.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate all that you all have put
into this very complex and very necessary effort. So we
appreciate your time and attention and your travel. So thank
you. We're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Bennett Raley to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Section 3(b) of S. 1097 approves the 2000 Record of
Decision (``ROD'') as a ``framework'' for addressing certain CALFED
Bay-Delta Program components.
a. Does this approval, as a framework, rise to the level of
codification of the ROD?
Answer. Section 3(b) of S. 1097 states in part that:
The Record of Decision is approved as a framework for
addressing Calfed Bay-Delta Program components consisting of
...[list of activities omitted]. The Secretary and the heads of
the Federal agencies are authorized to carry out (undertake,
fund, or participate in) the activities in the Record of
Decision, subject to the provisions of this Act and the
constraints of the Record of Decision, so that the Program
activities consisting of . . . [list of activities omitted] . .
. will progress in a balanced manner.
The bill does not codify any of the specific activities in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD). All activities
included in the ROD need further study and environmental review before
decisions on those activities can be made. The bill authorizes the
Federal agencies to undertake studies, analysis and reviews necessary
to make final project decisions.
b. To what extent do you feel this ``approval'' authorizes federal
implementation of the ROD?
Answer. The language in Section 3(b) of S. 1097 (noted in the
response to question 1a.), authorizes the Federal agencies to carry out
activities in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision. However,
this authority is subject to the provisions of the proposed bill.
Section 3(c)(l) of S. 1097 states that:
The Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies are
authorized to carry out the activities described in this
subsection in furtherance of Stage 1 of the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program as set forth in the Record of Decision, subject to the
cost-share and other provisions of this Act, if the activity
has been subject to environmental review and approval as
required under applicable Federal and State law, and has been
approved and certified by the [CBDA] to be consistent with the
Record of Decision.
Section 3(c)(1) read in combination with Sections 3(c)(2) and (3)
of the proposed bill limits that authority to the specifically
enumerated activities.
c. Do you believe approving the ROD as a ``framework'' affords you
the necessary authority to carry out the activities in S. 1097?
Activities in the ROD?
Answer. Approving the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision
(ROD) as a ``framework'' generally affords the implementing agencies
the necessary authority to carry out the activities in S. 1097, which
provides for implementing Stage 1 of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
However, we recommend that additional language should be added to the
proposed legislation to clarify the following:
1. Environmental Water Account (EWA). While the bill provides
authority and participation for EWA program activities for the
period years 4-7, we believe that the bill should authorize
implementation of a long-term EWA in a fashion that supports
the vision and flexibility envisioned in the ROD. The
establishment and successful operation of a long-term EWA will
be one of the most significant accomplishments of the CALFED
agencies in reducing the conflicts between fisheries and water
project operations.
2. Conveyance Program Elements. While the bill provides for
expending funds and evaluating certain conveyance activities,
it should also provide for conducting feasibility
investigations on (a) increasing pumping to 10,300 cfs at H. O.
Banks Pumping Plant, (b) designing and constructing a fish
screen and intake at Clifton Court, and (c) evaluating the San
Luis Reservoir Low Point Project.
Approving the ROD as a ``framework'' does not provide sufficient
authority to the implementing agencies to undertake all ROD enumerated
actions as this encompasses more than is authorized under S. 1097 which
covers only Stage 1 implementation--years 1-7 of the 30-year Program.
The Administration does not support giving blanket authorization to
CALFED program components, as this bill proposes. Individual project
components must go through their own NEPA analysis, and have separate
authorizations. However, the Administration is willing to continue to
work with Congress on the challenges inherent in moving forward
expeditiously on important projects, while still ensuring oversight on
the behalf of taxpayers and the environment.
d. Does this provision connote that such activities are to be
carried out consistent with the ROD, as is mentioned elsewhere in S.
1097? How much latitude does it give the Secretary of the Interior in
implementing aspects of the 30-year plan outlined in the ROD?
Answer. Yes, a general interpretation of Section 3(b) in
combination with other sections of the bill, implies that
implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD)
should progress in a balanced manner, consistent with the ROD. The ROD,
as a framework, enumerates various activities that can be implemented
to achieve the Program objectives. Varying combinations of activities
could conceivably be employed to achieve those objectives.
Consequently, the Secretary of the Interior would have discretion in
implementing those actions that would achieve the objectives rather
than being specifically held to implementing all enumerated activities.
However, the bill would not re-authorize CALFED for the full 30 years.
e. How does this section Sec. 3(b) compare with the more explicit
authority in Sec. 3(c)(1) for federal agencies to carry out actions in
this subsection in furtherance of Stage 1 of the ROD? Does the former,
in your view, confer more general authority than the activities in
Sec. 3(c)?
Answer. As alluded to in the question, Section 3(b) provides for
generally implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in a balanced
manner, consistent with the Record of Decision (ROD). Section 3(c)(1)
enumerates specific activities to be carried out by the Federal
agencies during Stage 1 of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Section 3(c)
appears to limit the broader grant of authority in Section 3(b) since
Section 3(b) is subject to the provisions of the proposed bill,
including Section 3(c). Section 3(c) also limits activities that should
be pursued, but the activities listed are broad and correspond to most
all of the actions listed in the ROD.
Question 2. S. 1097 authorizes appropriations for a host of CALFED
program components, some of which federal agencies already have
authority to perform.
a. How much money is currently being spent on activities that could
be identified as consistent with program components identified in S.
1097 (e.g., activities in Sec. 3(c)(3), such as water storage,
conveyance, water use efficiency, and ecosystem restoration)? In other
words, to what degree is the new appropriation level authorized by S.
1097 above and beyond federal funds currently being spent on these
types of activities?
Answer. A collective investment of approximately $1.925 billion has
been made in Years 1 through 3 from numerous Federal, state and local
funding sources, which has contributed to project accomplishments in
the program areas of water supply reliability, drinking water quality,
levees, ecosystem restoration, watershed, science and oversight and
coordination. Of the $1.925 billion, $1.204 billion was state funding,
$491 million was local funding and $230 million was Federal funding.
The Federal investment for all directly related programs and projects
that contribute to achieving the CALFED Record of Decision objectives
within the geographic solution area, Category A Programs, is a total of
$230 million.
Although CALFED-related activities have been funded under existing
authorities, these should not be considered a baseline for CALFED
funding. Any CALFED funding in the context of a re-authorized program
must be considered in the larger context of what is necessary to
achieve program goals.
b. What would the benefit be in terms of federal appropriations of
having the authorization provided under S. 1097 versus continued
funding under existing authorizations?
Answer. Over the past two fiscal years, funding for CALFED
activities has been appropriated through Reclamation's Water and
Related Resources account, rather than through Reclamation's Bay-Delta
account. This has occurred because Congress has refused to fund the
Bay-Delta account without CALFED Program reauthorization. The impact of
this to Reclamation is that increased funding in specific Central
Valley Project line items in the Water and Related Resources account
for in-lieu Bay-Delta activities potentially decreases the amount of
funding available overall in Water and Related Resources to Reclamation
core mission activities.
If the CALFED Program is reauthorized under S. 1097, funding could
be provided directly to Reclamation's Bay-Delta account, reducing
funding impacts to Reclamation core mission activities. There is also a
benefit to Reclamation and to the CALFED Program if other Federal
CALFED agencies receive authority and funding for CALFED activities
directly through their own appropriation process. Program authorization
and direct funding will ensure the full spectrum of CALFED Program
elements can be funded and implemented in a balanced manner. Without
authorization of S. 1097, only those program activities for which
agencies currently have authority can be implemented or funded,
potentially upsetting the balance of progress across the entire
Program.
c. What would be the consequences for federal appropriations of not
enacting this legislation?
Answer. Not enacting legislation and subsequent appropriations
places the implementing Federal agencies in the potential position of
redirecting funds away from core missions in order to meet authorized
CALFED Bay-Delta activities. This could have adverse effects on
programs that benefit California and other states.
Also, Congress has indicated in House Report 108-357, Making
Appropriation for Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 2004, and for other Purposes, that it will be
difficult for Congress to continue its support of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program and enact fiscal year 2005 appropriations absent authorizing
Program legislation.
Question 3. With regard to the relationship between federal and
state activities and the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program--
a. What is the function of the California Bay-Delta Authority, and
how is it expected to interact with federal agencies and their
activities under S. 1097? Specify this relationship especially with
respect to the Department of the Interior.
Answer. The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) was established
by State legislation enacted in 2002 to provide a permanent State
governance structure for the collaborative State-Federal effort that
began in 1994. Pursuant to that legislation which became effective
January 1, 2003, the CBDA formally assumed responsibility for
overseeing State implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The
legislation calls for the CBDA to sunset on January 1, 2006, unless
Federal legislation has been enacted authorizing the participation of
appropriate Federal agencies in the CBDA.
The state legislation specifically charges the CBDA with ensuring
balanced implementation of the Program, providing accountability to the
Legislative, Congress and the public, and ensuring the use of sound
science across all Program areas. The CBDA is a coordinating body and
has no legal authority over Federal agencies. Final decisions on
actions continue to reside with the implementing/funding agency.
Six Federal agencies are named as members of the CBDA including
three from the Department of the Interior: the Secretary of the
Interior, the Operations Manager of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California/Nevada Operations Office, and the Regional Director of the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region. Also named are the
Regional Administrator of Region IX of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the District Engineer of the Sacramento District of
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Administrator of the
Southwest Region of the U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Federal participation in the CBDA is intended to promote
coordination and interaction with state agency counterparts thereby
assisting both the state and Federal agencies to more effectively meet
their common goals and obligations. The existing coordination efforts
would not markedly change with the enactment of the bill other than the
Federal members of CBDA would become voting members. But, while
coordination efforts would not change significantly, a number of
complex institutional and legal issues would need to be addressed. For
example, we question whether it would be appropriate for Federal
members to cast votes on financial matters before the CBDA which are
entirely within the purview of the State, such as the transfer of funds
from one state agency to another. Another example is the issue of
whether the State's conflict of interest codes would apply to Federal
members of the CBDA; and how we would resolve this question if the
California Fair Political Practices Commission insisted that the state
laws are applicable and our Federal legal advisors disagree.
b. What unique role does (or could) the Bay-Delta Authority have
that makes it advantageous over having the federal agencies working
directly with the state agencies?
Answer. It appears that the Authority is intended by the State of
California to serve as its primary point of contact with the federal
government regarding all issues relating to CalFed. In addition, the
Authority also serves as a forum for education of and collaborative
discussions between the public, stakeholders, and state and federal
agencies.
c. How do the federal CALFED agencies currently interact with the
California Bay-Delta Authority?
Answer. Federal CalFed agencies attend Authority meetings, but do
not participate as voting members. Coordination also takes place
pursuant to the commitments made by the coordinating agencies in the
Amended and Restated CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum
of Understanding (Implementation MOU). The Implementation MOU sets out
the roles and responsibilities of the CALFED Agencies in the
implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and covers such items as
program integration and balance, financing, public and tribal
involvement, science-based adaptive management approach, environmental
justice, local implementation, etc. The participating agencies meet
twice a month, in addition to the CBDA meetings, to coordinate CALFED
related programs and activities.
d. In your view, do federal agencies need authorization to become
full partners in CALFED implementation or in implementation of
activities in the ROD?
Answer. We believe that we can constructively continue our
coordination efforts under the umbrella of the Amended and Restated
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding and
through participation in the California Bay-Delta Authority meetings as
non-voting members.
e. Are federal agencies participating in Bay-Delta Authority work
groups? If so, how? If not, why not?
Answer. While the California Bay-Delta Authority does not have
``work groups,'' the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee
(BDPAC) does have a number of stakeholder chaired subcommittees that
focus on specific program elements and advance recommendations through
the BDPAC for consideration by the implementing state and Federal
agencies. Representatives of the Federal agencies regularly attend the
sub-committee meetings to stay attuned to the stakeholders concerns. In
addition, the Federal agencies coordinate through state and Federal
agency meetings twice a month under the umbrella of the Amended and
Restated CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of
Understanding.
f. What are the advantages or disadvantages of having the Bay-Delta
Authority?
Answer. As noted previously, the California Bay-Delta Authority
(CBDA) provides a unique forum for discussion and coordination of the
implementation of the various components of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. This forum is complemented by the state and Federal agencies
coordination efforts under the Amended and Restated CALFED Bay-Delta
Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding.
The disadvantage of the structure of the CBDA stem from a host of
unresolved issues relating to the proposed direct federal participation
in decision making by a State agency.
g. What authority does the Bay-Delta Authority have over federal
activities? How are those actions coordinated? Are any actions by the
Bay-Delta Authority binding for federal agencies?
Answer. The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) is a coordinating
body and has no legal or binding authority over Federal agencies.
Section 79403.5.(c) of the California State Water Code states in part
that:
Nothing in this division shall be construed to restrict or
override constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or adjudicatory
authority or public trust responsibilities of any federally
recognized Indian tribe, or any local, state, or federal
agency, or to restrict or override authority or responsibility
of state, federal, or local water project operations under
applicable law and contracts.
The CBDA assists in prioritizing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
activities and funding to ensure balanced implementation; however,
final decisions continue to reside with the implementing/funding agency
whether state or Federal. Section 29423.(1) of the California State
Water Code states: ``Nothing in this division limits or interferes with
the final decisionmaking authority of the implementing agencies.''
h. If disagreements occur among stakeholders of the Bay-Delta
Authority, what mechanisms are in place for resolution?
Answer. California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) members may attempt
to reach agreement during the course of discussions and deliberations
at CBDA meetings. Interested stakeholders may resolve issues through
the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee process, including
advancing their issues through the various subcommittees to the main
body. Finally, CALFED participating agencies may raise and resolve
issues through their twice monthly meetings held under the auspices of
the Amended and Restated CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation
Memorandum of Understanding. To date, the CBDA has not adopted a
formalized dispute resolution process.
i. Do you have recommendations for the Committee on legislative
language to address this governance issue?
Answer. Because of the issues associated with being a voting
member, we recommend that the legislation authorize the Federal
agencies to continue to work with the CBDA in order to enhance the
coordination of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. As previously noted, at
the present time, we do not feel it is appropriate for the Federal
members to participate as voting members of the CBDA.
Question 4. Section 3(d)(3)(A)(I) authorizes appropriations for
planning activities and feasibility studies for enlarging Shasta Dam
and Los Vaqueros Reservoir ``to be pursued with project specific
study.'' Section 3(d)(3)(A)(ii) authorizes appropriations for planning
and feasibility studies for Sites Reservoir and Upper San Joaquin River
storage ``requiring further consideration.''
a. How would this language Sec. 3(d)(3)(A)(I) and
Sec. 3(d)(3)(A)(ii) change the way the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
currently conducts its planning and feasibility investigations?
Sections 3(d)(3)(A)(i) and 3(d)(3)(A)(ii) of S. 1097 state:
(3) Program activities--(A) WATER STORAGE--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through
2007 under this Act, no more than $102,000,000 may be expended
for the following--(i) planning activities and feasbility
studies for the following projects to be pursued with project-
specific study--(1) enlargement of Shasta Dam in Shasta County
(not to exceed 12,000,000); and (II) enlargement of Los
Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County (not to exceed
$17,000,000); (ii) planning and feasibility studies for the
following projects requiring further consideration--(1) Sites
Reservoir in Colusa County (not to exceed $6,000,000); and (II)
Upper San Joaquin River storage in Fresno and Madera Counties
(not to exceed $11,000,000): (iii) developing and implementing
groundwater management and groundwater storage project (not to
exceed $50,000,000); and (iv) comprehensive water management
planning (not to exceed $6,000,000).
Answer. Sections 3(c)(3)(A)(i) and 3(c)(3)(A)(ii) would not change
the way the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation currently conducts planning
investigations. All of the storage investigations will be conducted
consistent with existing policies and Federal law.
b. What practical effect would the different language in clauses
(i) and (ii) have on these studies?
Answer. There would be no effect on the way the studies outlined in
Sections 3(c)(3)(A)(i) and 3(c)(3)(A)(ii) are currently being
conducted. The studies in clause (i) focus on modifications to existing
facilities, while the studies in clause (ii) will include an evaluation
of alternative project locations. This distinction is consistent with
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision.
c. Would a CALFED project led by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) be
required to meet all of the requirements guiding federal water
resources development projects, such as the Principles and Guidelines?
Answer. Yes. The feasibility studies will meet all the requirements
for feasibility investigations including Principles and Guidelines,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Law, and necessary environmental
documentation.
Question 5. Section 3(c)(3)(B)(I) authorizes $45 million for
several specific South Delta improvements.
a. Does this $45 million represent only the federal share of such
improvements?
Sections 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(I)(aa) through (dd) of S. 1097 state:
``(B) CONVEYANCE--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this Act,
no more than $77,000,000 may be expended for the following--
(i) South Delta Actions (not to exceed $45,000,000)--
(I) South Delta Improvements Program to--
(aa) increase the State Water Project
export limit to 8,500 cfs;
(bb) install permanent, operable
barriers in the south Delta;
(cc) design and construct fish
screens and intake facilities at
Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy
Pumping Plant facilities; and
(dd) increase the State Water Project
export to the maximum capability of
10,300 cfs;''
Answer. Yes. A current proposal known as the South Delta
Improvements Program includes increasing the State Water Project export
limit to an average of 8,500 cfs, and installation of permanent
operable barriers in the south Delta. The current schedule is to have
this project approved and constructed by 2007. Cost estimates provided
by the California Department of Water Resources for this proposal are
$120 million. The $45 million would represent the estimated Federal
share for this project.
b. What specific South Delta improvements will the federal
government be involved in and how (e.g., construction, technical
assistance, etc.)?
Answer. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) will be
involved in the construction of several permanent operational barriers
to protect fish and water levels in the south Delta as part of the
South Delta Improvements Program. This participation is authorized and
directed under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title XXXIV
of P.L. 102-575. Reclamation will provide technical assistance to the
California Department of Water Resources for the design and operation
of all proposed barriers. Reclamation will also enter into an agreement
with the State that will define the operation of the Banks Pumping
Plant at 8,500 cfs pumping capacity to meet the state and Federal Water
Project's Coordinated Operating Agreement. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may be involved
in the clean water permitting actions required for construction of
these facilities.
c. Where the federal government is concerned, what additional NEPA
analysis would be required to carry out these activities?
Answer. NEPA compliance is required for all listed activities. The
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation with the California
Department of Water Resources, is currently preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for the South Delta
Improvements Program to document the decision-making process and
environmental impacts for the following:
(1) Increasing the State Water Project export limit to 8,500 cfs to
support a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers diversion permit and conveyance
of Federal water supplies;
(2) Installing permanent, operable barriers in the south Delta;
(3) Installing and operating temporary barriers in the south Delta
until the fully operable barriers are constructed; and (4) Actions to
protect navigation and local diversions not adequately protected by the
temporary barriers.
d. In your view, can these South Delta improvements be accomplished
without ``avoiding adverse fishery impacts and in-Delta water supply
reliability''--language noted in the ROD (p. 49)?
Answer. Yes. The operation of the permanent barriers and increasing
the permitted pumping capacity to 8,500 cfs can be accomplished while
avoiding the adverse impacts noted. Mitigation measures are being
formulated to address the potential adverse fishery impacts associated
with the implementation of the South Delta Improvements Project.
However, assuring that there would be no additional fishery and water
supply reliability impacts may reduce the Delta export water supply
benefits resulting from the South Delta Improvement Program.
e. Do you believe statutory protection for these objectives is
necessary as is provided under Sec. Sec. 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(I)(aa) and (dd)
of H.R. 2641?
Sections 3(c)(3)(B)(i)(I)(aa) through (dd) of H.R. 2641 state:
``(B) CONVEYANCE--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this Act,
no more than $77,000,000 may be expended for the following--
(i) South Delta Actions (not to exceed $45,000,000)--
(I) South Delta Improvements Program to--
(aa) increase the State Water Project
export limit to 8,500 cfs; such
increased pumping is conditional upon
avoiding adverse impacts to fishery
protection and in-Delta water supply
reliability;
(bb) install permanent, operable
barriers in the south Delta;
(cc) design and construct fish
screens and intake facilities at
Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy
Pumping Plant facilities; and
(dd) increase the State Water Project
export to the maximum capability of
10,300 cfs; such increased pumping is
conditional upon avoiding adverse
impacts to fishery protection and in-
Delta water supply reliability;''
Answer. Statutory protection is not needed for fish species that
are listed as either state or Federal threatened or endangered species.
The language in the referenced section of H.R. 2641 is ambiguous in
that it continues the use of a broad and undefined phrase ``fishery
protection,'' rather than protection for specific defined species. In
addition, ``in-Delta water supply reliability'' is also subject to
interpretation.
f. What actions are anticipated in the South Delta to minimize
impacts on drinking water quality? Who will agricultural drainage and
saltwater intrusion be d.) In your view, can these South Delta
improvements be accomplished without ``avoiding adverse fishery impacts
and in-Delta water supply reliability''--language noted in the ROD (p.
49)? Note: This is the question, verbatim, as posed by the Senate.)
Answer. Note: Please clarify the question, if you feel our response
does not answer the question posed. A basic purpose of the South Delta
Improvements Program is to ensure water of adequate quantity and
quality for agricultural diverters within the south Delta, and to
benefit fisheries by reducing straying of salmon into the south Delta.
The South Delta Improvements Program will have beneficial water quality
and fishery effects, and will result in less than significant adverse
impacts through implementation of needed mitigation measures. The type
of action anticipated to minimize impacts on drinking water quality
involves alternative operation of various tidal gates associated with
the operation of the State of California Clifton Court Forebay.
Question 6. Section 3(c)(3)(C)(i) of S. 1097 authorizes
appropriations for water conservation projects that provide water
supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits to the Bay-
Delta system.a. In the view of the Department of the Interior (DOI),
does Sec. 3(c)(3)(C)(i) of S. 1097 provide blanket authority for DOI
and others to undertake water recycling and desalination projects in
California (subject to the constraints of the subsection)?
Answer. No. While Section 3(c)(3(c)(i)-(v) provides authorization
for appropriations to be expended on water recycling and desalination
projects, it does not provide authority for the Secretary to undertake
feasibility studies or construction of projects for those purposes.
However, the Secretary already has feasibility study authority for
water reclamation and reuse projects under P.L. 102-575, Title XVI.
b. How would this provision affect implementation and funding of
previously authorized Title 16 projects?
Answer. Previously authorized projects under P.L. 102-575, Title
XVI, as amended, are probably not directly impacted. However, Section
3(c)(3)(C)(iii)(IV) states that the Federal cost share of any water
recycling project under this proposed legislation shall not exceed 25
percent or $50 million per project, an increase over the current $20
million per cap. This change would therefore affect new projects, but
not already-authorized projects.
Feasibility study authority already exists under P.L. 102-575,
Section 1604, for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to conduct water
recycling and reuse feasibility studies.
Question 7. S. 1097 refers to the ``beneficiary pays provisions of
the Record of Decision.'' The ROD states that ``cost allocation plans
will be based on the principles of beneficiary pays.'' This principle
state that costs, to the extent possible, shall be paid by the
beneficiaries of the program actions.
a. S. 1097 authorizes specific appropriation amounts for various
categories of activities. Within each of the categories, how will
spending on individual projects be prioritized? For example, what
method would be used to select ecosystem projects to receive funds, and
how would available funds be distributed across selected projects?
Answer. The implementing Federal agency will determine which
specific projects have priority within a program on a project-by-
project basis. Federal agencies working with the Administration will
submit annual budget requests for Congress' review and appropriation.
Annual requests for project funding and priority will be based on
Federal parameters and budgetary guidance for that fiscal year.
The language of the proposed bill does not limit the Federal share
of any project or any agency participation to 33.3%, but rather it
limits total Federal participation in the Program to 33.3%.
Certain CALFED Bay-Delta program elements, including the Ecosystem
Restoration Program, are predominantly implemented through grant
programs. These grant programs have and will continue to target
priorities established by the implementing agencies, and the CALFED
Science Program along with stakeholder input. To the extent feasible,
grant awards will be based upon competitive procedures.
b. In S. 1097, the federal portion of the cost of implementing the
CALFED Program is limited to 33.3%; the bill, however, does not appear
to guide federal cost sharing on individual activities. Under S. 1097,
how would the federal portion of costs be determined for each of the
studies and projects undertaken as part of CALFED? For example, what
would be the federal cost-share responsibility for Shasta dam and for
the Delta levees?
Answer. For several agencies the Federal portion of cost will be
based on a specific project-by-project basis while other Federal
agencies will base the cost sharing at the program level. Individual
agencies will determine how to portion the costs for each of the
studies, projects, and/or programs undertaken as part of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program.
The Federal costs for water resource studies and projects are based
on cost sharing requirements and allocation methodologies outlined in
Federal laws, policies and Executive level guidance, i.e., Principles
and Guidelines.
The four feasibility level studies, including Shasta Dam
Enlargement, within the Storage Program Element are being pursued with
state cost sharing on a programmatic level. This arrangement allows
either party to accomplish work with or without specific funding from
either party, but provides for the crediting of costs of each party in
the final reconciliation.
The project specific cost sharing will be addressed within the
feasibility study and includes an evaluation of the combined factors of
costs and benefits, the financial capability of the project
beneficiaries and a cost allocation of project purposes. The final
feasibility report will provide detailed information of the Federal and
non-Federal cost sharing arrangement.
c. Because many federal agencies use federal appropriations on
projects that under current law are eligible for a higher federal cost-
share, would the language in S. 1097 restrict federal participation in
a project to 33.3%? Would each individual federal agency's
participation be limited to 33.3%?
Answer. Each Federal agency would have to submit a recommendation
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administration for
approval on how to handle that individual agency's interpretation of
legislation and the 33.3% provision versus previous law(s) and policy.
Agencies may determine the legislation supersedes previous laws and/or
policy while other agencies may determine eligibility at higher Federal
cost-shares rates. In both cases the agency's coordination and approval
by OMB and the Administration would be required before either option
was implemented.
d. Under S. 1097 and the ROD, how will the cost of ecosystem
restoration be allocated among the federal, state, and local CALFED
sponsors, recognizing the difficulty of identifying direct
beneficiaries of ecosystem restoration?
Answer. Our current view is that if multiple separable features or
benefit categories are identified in a project the component for each
individual separable feature, i.e., ecosystem restoration, will be
determined based on principles and guidelines and the resulting cost-
sharing for each separable project feature, i.e., ecosystem
restoration, for that implementing agency or local CALFED project
sponsor will be determined.
e. Ecosystem restoration and mitigation costs raise the question of
legacy environmental harm and who is responsible. Are costs related to
activities that will improve environmental health to be allocated to
the historic water users who benefited from the projects that diverted
water away and thus caused ecosystem damage, or are ecosystem
restoration and mitigation costs to be allocated to the beneficiaries
of the improved environment?
Answer. Site specific mitigation required and mitigation costs will
be attributed to new projects for those individual new project's
environmental impacts. Mitigation work will be allocated to the Federal
and non-Federal partners involved in a project based on applicable
mitigation laws and policies. Environmental restoration or re-
establishment or betterment of the environment health will be cost
shared based on the applicable agency's restoration laws and policies
and cost shared according to those agency's environmental restoration
standards.
Question 8. Will S. 1097 help implement the recent Colorado River
agreement? If so, what provisions will aid the agreement's
implementation?
Answer. Although this legislation will not directly assist with the
implementation of the Colorado River Agreement, certainly
implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program will provide for
increasing water supply flexibility, water quality and environmental
restoration. In addition, this allows for a robust water transfer
market. All of the elements which will aid California in keeping its
promise to limit its future use of Colorado River water.
Question 9. In your testimony, you raise a number of concerns with
S. 1097, as introduced.
a. You note that S. 1097 references two studies that the
Administration has not cleared. Which studies are those?
Answer. The legislation refers to the Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study and the Bay Area
Regional Recycling Program, both of which are authorized under Title
XVI of P.L. 102-575.
b. You note that S. 1097 presumes authorization of storage projects
that may not be authorized after additional studies are completed. You
further state that ``CalFed should identify alternate paths for
achieving the outcomes of the storage component of the program.''
Do you have any suggestions as to how the storage component of the
program can best be achieved?
Answer. The Water Supply Reliability Program Element of CALFED has
several component actions that in varying combinations could be pursued
to achieve increased water supplies. Should surface storage projects
not be deemed feasible, complimentary water conservation and
groundwater storage projects could be investigated and pursued.
Implementation of CALFED Bay-Delta Program activities will be advised
by the best available science and adaptively pursued so as to achieve
the objectives of the Program which does not necessarily imply
implementing all projects enumerated in the Record of Decision.
c. You state the Administration's concern that the bill gives
blanket authorization to projects that have not undergone the typical
Executive review process.
Which projects outlined in S. 1097 is the Administration concerned
with?
Answer. The language in several sections of the proposed
legislation appears to give blanket authorization to projects that have
not undergone the typical project development and Executive review
process. For example:
(1) Section 3(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides for both developing and
implementing groundwater storage projects. Groundwater Projects are
typically locally driven and Federal participation and funding should
be subject to the responsible Federal implementing agencies feasibility
investigations and review process.
(2) Section 3(c)(3)(C)(iii) directs the Secretary to review any
seawater desalination and regional brine line feasibility studies,
regardless of prior U.S. Department of Interior involvement in those
studies. Such studies are again locally driven and should be adopted by
the Administration and/or Congress only after being subjected to the
same scrutiny that applies to Federally-sponsored studies.
d. With regard to the cross-cut budget, your testimony notes that
the Department of Justice has alternate language. When will that
language be provided to the Committee?
Answer. We are consulting with the Department of Justice and will
provide the Committee with a response in the near future. Follow-Up
Questions form Senator Gordon Smith
Response of Bennett Raley to Question From Senator Smith
Question 1. My Question does not relate directly to Cal-Fed, but
rather to a situation in my state. On August 8, 2003, I joined with
Senator Wyden and Congressman Walden to send a letter to Commissioner
Keys, requesting that he reconsider the agency's decision to deny
applicant status in an Endangered Species Act consultation to three
irrigation districts in southern Oregon.
I received a response from the Pacific Northwest Regional Director,
Bill McDonald, that he had been asked to respond on behalf of the
Commissioner, and that he would not reconsider this earlier decision
not to grant applicant status to these districts, yet provided few
justifications as to how his decision had been arrived at.
I am concerned that his decision, which involves diversions from
the Klamath Basin, was made at the regional level, even though two
regions are involved. I am also concerned that this decision may have
been made without review by the Solicitor's office in Washington.
In sum, the applicants (the Talent, Medford, and Rogue River Valley
Irrigation Districts) applied to applicant status based on the Joint
Consultation Regulations that define Applicant as ``any person, as
defined in Sec. 3(13) of the Act, who requires formal approval or
authorization form a federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting the
action.'' 50 CFR 402.02 (1999).
Was this decision made, reviewed or approved in Washington, D.C.?
How does the Department justify these districts applicant status,
based on the fact that operation of facilities owned and/or operated by
the districts is an interrelated and/or interdependent activity with
Reclamation's operation of the Rogue River Basin Project?
Will you commit to reviewing this decision? I am willing to provide
you with any additional documentation or prior correspondence you may
require.
Answer. The Department will respond to Senator Smith directly with
regard to this question.
Responses of Bennett Raley to Questions From Senator Feinstein
Question 1. I understand that the Administration supports the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program and the August 28, 2002 Record of Decision. Do
you believe that there has been an effective partnership between the
Federal government and the State of California in working on these
important water management issues?
What do you expect for that partnership in the future?
Answer. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision
contemplates a 30-year Program to improve the quality and reliability
of California's water supplies and revive the San Francisco Bay-Delta
ecosystem. The first three years of the Program's implementation have
produced notable progress in improving water supply reliability and the
ecological health of the Bay-Delta Estuary. This progress has been
possible due to the cooperative and collaborative efforts of the
implementing Federal, state and local agencies. This level of
interaction is anticipated to continue into the future so as to realize
the long-term benefits and expectations of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
Do you have any recommendations for effective governance
structure in CALFED legislation, bringing together State and
Federal agencies?
Answer. We believe that we can constructively continue our
coordination efforts under the umbrella of the Amended and Restated
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Implementation Memorandum of Understanding and
through participation in the California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA)
meetings as non-voting members.
Because of the legal and institutional issues associated with being
a voting member, we recommend that the legislation authorize the
Federal agencies to continue to work with the CBDA in order to enhance
the coordination of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. As previously noted,
at the present time, we do not feel it is appropriate for the Federal
members to participate as voting members of the CBDA.
Question 2. In her testimony on Calfed legislation last Congress
before this Subcommittee, Secretary Norton stated that ``Congress needs
to authorize the Calfed Program so we can proceed with balanced
progress on all resource fronts.'' Is that still the Administration's
position?
Answer. Yes. Secretary Norton on many occasions has emphasized the
Administration's commitment to making CALFED work for the long term.
The Secretary has stated that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a prime
example of a forward looking, long-term approach to water management
and conflict resolution. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior)
is committed to working through the CALFED process to increase water
supplies and their reliability, improve the environment and increase
the flexibility and accomplishments of the Bay-Delta system and
California's water management infrastructure. Moving the Program from
planning to implementation is a complex challenge given the fiscal
realities at hand. Interior will continue to work closely with you to
get the CALFED Bay-Delta Program authorized.
Question 3. In your oral statement at the hearing, you discussed
the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse
Study. However, you did not address the status of the second water
recycling study in California--the Bay Area Regional Recycling
Program--also authorized in Title XVI, P.L. 102-575. This feasibility
study was completed in December 1999, but like the Southern California
feasibility study, has not been submitted to Congress.
What is the status of the Bay Area Study?
Answer. The report has been reviewed and processed. The U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation recently transmitted the report for transmission to
Congress.
When will it be submitted to Congress?
Answer. The report was transmitted to Congress in early December
2003.
Question 4. How much funding has the Federal government contributed
over the first three years of Stage 1 of this Program? How much has the
State contributed?
Answer. A collective investment of approximately $1.925 billion has
been made in Years 1 through 3 from numerous Federal, state and local
funding sources which has attributed to project accomplishments in the
program areas of water supply reliability, drinking water quality,
levees, ecosystem restoration, watershed, science and oversight and
coordination. Of the $1.925 billion, $1,204 million was state funding,
$491 million was local funding and $230 million was Federal funding.
The Federal investment for all directly related programs and projects
that contribute to achieving the CALFED Record of Decision objectives
within the geographic solution area, Category A Programs, is a total of
$230 million. In addition, the Federal investment for all directly
related and overlapping programs and projects that contribute to
achieving the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision objectives
within and overlapping the geographic solution area is a total of $600
million.
Question 5. How would you describe the level of cooperation and
commitment of the other Federal agencies to this Program?
Answer. The level of cooperation and commitment of the
participating Federal agencies has been steady, however, not uniform.
This can be attributable to varying funding levels across the agencies,
lulls in project implementation schedules and diversity of agency
missions. The enactment of legislation and accompanying appropriations
would aid in stabilizing the involvement and level of participation by
Federal agencies.
Question 6. What is the status of the work on the following storage
projects:
Shasta Dam?
Answer. A Mission Statement Milestone Report has been completed.
This report describes the plan formulation rationale, the study
objectives and mission statement, as well as identifying a number of
concept plans for future investigation. A thorough review of ecosystem
restoration opportunities on the Sacramento River has been completed,
as well as a preliminary investigation of potential effects of an
increased reservoir on the McCloud River. A public outreach program has
been initiated to involve stakeholders in the plan formulation process.
A Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation that initiates formal public
scoping will issued in the spring of 2004.
The project schedule is as follows:
Action ROD Current
Report on Initial Alternatives ................. March 2004
Plan Formulation Report ................. June 2005
Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/ ................. March 2007
EIR
Final Feasibility Report & EIS/ December 2003 September 2007
EIR
Los Vaqueros?
Answer. A draft Planning Report has been completed that provides a
preliminary analysis of the physical effects of enlarging the reservoir
as well as an array of operational scenarios. Pending an advisory vote
by Contra Costa Water District ratepayers in March 2004, work will be
initiated on the state and Federal environmental compliance process as
well as additional engineering studies. During the period before the
March 2004 vote, agency coordination and identification of work
activities will be accomplished immediately following the March vote.
The project schedule is a follows:
Action ROD Current
Local Advisory Vote ................. March 2004
Plan Formulation Report ................. November 2004
Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/ ................. June 2006
EIR
Final Feasibility Report & EIS/ December 2003 June 2007
EIR
Sites Reservoir?
Answer. Planning studies are focused on developing a purpose and
need description and screening criteria for project alternatives based
on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision. Work is continuing
in areas of hydrology, water quality, and hydraulics modeling to assess
potential project benefits and impacts. Reclamation is also reviewing
DWR studies relevant to geology, engineering, and conveyance. Initial
coordination with DWR on economic analyses for the feasibility study
has begun. Reclamation has initiated agreements with several tribes to
assess benefits and impacts to their Indian Trust Assets. Reclamation
is also developing a work plan to assess potential Federal interest in
the proposed North of Delta Off-Stream Storage plan.
The project schedule is a follows:
Action ROD Current
Report on Initial Alternatives ................. June 2004
Plan Formulation Report ................. September 2004
Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/ ................. June 2005
EIR
Final Feasibility Report & EIS/ August 2004 June 2006
EIR
Delta Wetlands?
Answer. The California Department of Water Resources plans to
publicly release the In-Delta Storage Draft State Feasibility Report in
December 2003. The State Feasibility Report addresses the technical and
engineering practicality of a re-engineered alternative that meets
State design requirements. There will be a 30-day public review period
subsequent to the final release of the State Feasibility Report which
is anticipated in February 2004.
Both the CALFED Science Review Board and DWR are working on
developing a plan for resolving water quality issues associated with
water storage on the islands. The cost of an In-Delta Storage Project
is estimated at $774 million. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
involvement in the planning study is limited to technical assistance
since a Federal feasibility study investigation has not been authorized
by Congress.
A recommendation by the California Bay-Delta Authority regarding
the future of the In-Delta Storage Program is scheduled for April 2004.
Upper San Joaquin storage projects?
Answer. An interim planning report was completed in October 2003
describing the storage options still being considered. The findings in
the interim report show that six surface storage projects appear
technically feasible and will be considered in more detail. A Notice of
Intent and Notice of Preparation will be issued in January 2004 to
initiate formal public scoping . An alternatives report is planned for
August 2004 that will describe the final set of alternatives to be
considered in the study.
The project schedule is as follows:
Action ROD Current
Issue NOI/NOP ................. January 2004
Report on Initial Alternatives ................. August 2004
Plan Formulation Report ................. August 2005
Draft Feasibility Report & EIS/ ................. December 2006
EIR
Final Feasibility Report & EIS/ December 2003 December 2007
EIR
Question 7. What is the status of work on new groundwater storage?
Answer. Within the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, the California
Department of Water Resources is the lead agency working with local
interests in evaluating new groundwater storage. To date, the
conjunctive management program has shown great potential to provide
short-term water supply benefits. Funding under the State's Proposition
13 has allowed many locally managed and controlled groundwater studies
and pilot projects to be developed. Additional work is needed to
identify more new groundwater projects and implement the projects
currently identified.
Question 8. What are the significant water quality challenges
confronting water users in the Bay-Delta. What progress is Calfed
making with respect to these challenges?
Answer. Great strides have been made over the last few years in
understanding how the Delta works, but much more scientific
understanding is needed. Delta water quality is at times degraded for a
number of reasons and this can impact use of the water by agriculture,
fish and wildlife and municipal suppliers. Man-made and natural
pollutants can enter the Delta from many upstream watersheds. Water
diversions may affect the circulation patterns within the Delta. Point
and nonpoint discharges within the Delta and upstream create both local
and general water quality concerns. Water diversions upstream and in
the Delta reduce the overall amount of fresh water in the system, which
may concentrate degraded constituents and reduce the ability of the
Delta to rely on natural flushing to resolve water quality problems.
Significant tidal influences affect delta water quality in ways we are
still trying to understand.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program agencies primary approach to resolving
water quality concerns is a competitive grant programs. The grant
review process identifies the highest priority projects with the best
potential for making near-term improvements and/or developing critical
information necessary to resolving water quality problems. To date, the
CALFED agencies have invested over $34 million in 21 water quality
projects through the Drinking Water Quality and Ecosystem Restoration
Programs. Examples of the projects funded include:
(1) Developing solution to improve dissolved oxygen
conditions in the San Joaquin River near Stockton;
(2) Evaluate mercury transport and uptake within the Delta
watershed; and
(3) North Bay Aqueduct Alternative Intake Study.
In addition, CALFED has supported regional efforts using innovative
management to provide better water quality ``at the tap,'' including
the Bay Area's Bay Area Water Quality and Supply Reliability Program.
Water quality has also benefited from other CALFED Bay-Delta
program elements. Most notably, the watershed program, which has funded
over 50 projects with over $19 million, has benefits for both the
ecosystem and for downstream water quality.
Question 9. What progress is being made in the ecosystem
restoration component of the program?
Answer. Since its inception nearly 7 years ago, the Ecosystem
Restoration Program (ERP) has facilitated funding for a variety of
projects contributing to ecosystem restoration on within the ERP's
geographic scope. ERP investments contributed to sustaining regulatory
commitments for all CALFED Bay-Delta Program elements in Years 1
through 3. As of June 2003, 393 ecosystem projects have been funded in
the approximate amount of $480 million that address recovering
endangered and other at-risk species, rehabilitating ecological
processes, maintaining or enhancing harvestable species populations,
protecting and restoring habitats, preventing establishment of non-
native invasive species and reducing their impact, and improving or
maintaining water and sediment quality. These projects have resulted in
the thousands of acres of habitat being protected or restored and 75
new or improved fish screens have been installed. Additionally, 23
comprehensive scientific studies have been initiated to address areas
of uncertainty and develop/enhance ecological data.
In addition, certain ecosystem restoration activities we are
implementing pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA) are coordinated through the CALFED ERP Single Blueprint--
concept for restoration and species recovery within the geographic
scope of the ERP--and support the goals and objectives of the CALFED
ERP. Implementation of CVPIA activities have resulted in positive
effects to the numerous species and habitat types throughout the
Central Valley ecosystem. The investment and results of those CVPIA
program activities coordinated with the CALFED ERP are briefly
highlighted as follows:
Habitat Restoration ($124 million investment).
Applied up to 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project
water each year to improve stream flows for salmon, steelhead,
and other fish on the Sacramento, American, and Stanislaus
Rivers and on Clear Creek.
Removed five dams and 15 in-stream diversions in basin,
providing improved access to over 24 miles of upstream spawning
areas and enhanced survival of juvenile outmigrants.
Acquired over 8,000 acres of riparian habitat.
Restored or enhanced over 500 acres along 30 miles of basin
streams.
Acquired over 108,000 acre-feet of water through purchase or
exchange to improve fish habitat and passage, stream flow, and
water temperatures.
Added approximately 156,000 tons of gravel to streams.
Made operational changes to protect fish at the state and
Federal pumping plants and at the Delta Cross Channel Gates.
Implemented the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program.
Acquired over 172 acres of riparian habitat.
Restored or enhanced over 500 acres along 8.7 miles of basin
streams to provide cover and shade.
Enhanced over 5.4 miles of stream channel as instream
habitat for anadromous fish.
Acquired over 844,000 acre-feet of water for restoration of
fish-friendly instream flows.
Placed nearly 72,000 tons of gravel in San Joaquin River
Basin streams to increase spawning habitat availability for
native fishes.
Structural Measures ($264.6 million investment)
Screened or otherwise modified 19 diversions with a total
capacity of over 6,700 cubic feet per second to reduce
entrainment of juvenile fishes.
Installed Shasta Dan temperature control device.
Improved Coleman National Fish Hatchery-Raceways and
installed a new water treatment system to protect hatchery
production.
Constructed Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery on the
mainstem Sacramento River to assist in the management and
recovery of winter-run Chinook salmon.
Modified and improved the Keswick Fish Trap.
Screened 6 diversions to protect juvenile fish.
Installed a seasonal barrier at the head of Old River.
Removed a barrier to fish migration on the Cosumnes River.
Question 10. Please describe the so-called ``Napa Proposition.'' Is
it consistent with the Calfed Record of Decision? What is the
significance of this effort?
Answer. The Napa Proposition is a process to develop feasible plans
to implement key actions contained in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
Record of Decision (ROD). The primary objective of the initial Napa
discussions was to develop a proposal for the integration of the State
Water Project (SWP) and the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in a
manner that is consistent with the CALFED ROD. The proposition was
developed during meetings that were a continuation of an ongoing
relationship between the project agencies and their contractors to
ensure better coordination of the day-to-day operations of both
projects.
The proposition is expected to moderately increase supplies for
both projects. By better managing risk, it will allow higher
allocations earlier in the year, increasing certainty for both CVP and
SWP contractors. Most importantly, the proposition sets the stage for
implementation of key CALFED Bay-Delta program elements, including
increasing pumping capacity at the SWP Banks Pumping Plant to 8,500
cfs, implementation of the South Delta Improvements Project,
continuation of the Environmental Water Account, and making
improvements to Delta water quality among other things.
The Napa Proposition was really just the beginning of a process and
no final decisions have been made. The proposition is being considered
through a more formal decision-making process described in the CALFED
ROD, including various stakeholders and public review activities.
Question 11. What is the California Bay-Delta Authority? Please
describe the role of the Federal agencies in the Authority.
Answer. The California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA), established by
California legislation enacted in 2002 (California Bay-Delta Authority
Act), provides a permanent governance structure for the collaborative
State-Federal effort that began in 1994. The CBDA is charged
specifically with ensuring balanced implementation of the Program,
providing accountability to the Legislature, Congress and the public,
and ensuring the use of sound science across all Program areas.
The CBDA is composed of representatives from six State agencies and
six Federal agencies, five public members from the Program's five
regions, two at-large public members, a representative from the Bay-
Delta Public Advisory Committee, and four ex officio members who are
the chairs and vice-chairs of the California Senate and Assembly water
committees. Currently Federal agencies are engaging with their State
CALFED partner agencies and have participated as nonvoting members in
the first two meetings. This engagement takes the form of coordination
and discussions on Program implementation efforts.
Question 12. What relationship, if any, does the Calfed Program
have with respect to compliance with the Colorado River Agreement?
Answer. Implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program will provide
for increasing water supply reliability and flexibility in operations,
and water quality throughout the Bay-Delta estuary. These anticipated
improvements will aid in meeting the future water resource needs of the
State as a whole and enable California to keep its promise to limit its
future use of Colorado River water.
Responses of Bennett Raley to Questions From Senator Dorgan
Question 1. Do you believe that it is important to enact Federal
authorizing legislation for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program this Congress?
Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, and we have said repeatedly that it is important for
this Congress to pass CALFED legislation. Not enacting legislation and
subsequent appropriations places the implementing Federal agencies in
the potential position of redirecting funds away from core missions in
order to meet authorized CALFED Bay-Delta activities. This could have
adverse effects on programs that benefit California and other states. A
lengthy protraction of this effort will also confound the planning
efforts underway to satisfy the competing water resource needs of
California.
Also, Congress has indicated in House Report 108-357, Making
Appropriation for Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 2004, and for other Purposes, that it will be
difficult for Congress to continue its support of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program and enact fiscal year 2005 appropriations absent authorizing
legislation.
Question 2. Does the Calfed Bay-Delta Program enjoy broad support
among stakeholders in California?
Answer. Stakeholders and the public have demonstrated a continuing
interest and commitment to the goals outlined in the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program Record of Decision (ROD) through participation in the
California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee as well as numerous
public meetings focusing on specific program and project implementation
efforts. This commitment has been tempered by current fiscal realities
and concerns that the broad goals of the ROD continue to be pursued,
but over a more extended time frame.
Question 3. What implications, if any, does authorizing the Calfed
Program have for other western states?
Answer. Authorization of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the
context of implementing the water supply reliability and environmental
improvements outlined in the Program's Record of Decision will have
broad effects statewide and throughout the West. The Bay-Delta system
provides drinking water to 22 million people, supports a trillion
dollar economy, including a $27 billion agricultural industry, and
forms of the hub of the largest estuary on the west coast which is home
to 750 plant and animal species and supports 80 percent of California's
commercial salmon fisheries. Better management of California's water
resources, will provide security for all other western states and
compliment the achievements made in the Colorado River Agreement. In
addition, providing stable supplies will enhance economic recovery for
the 5th largest economy in the world. It further will provide
interstate and international benefits by increasing populations of
salmon and other anadromous fish on the west coast and by improving
habitat for migratory wildfowl on the Pacific Flyway.
Question 4. When will the secretary complete the additional
environmental reviews for the December 19, 2000 Trinity River Record of
Decision, as ordered by the court? Please provide a schedule detailing
interim steps and final deadline for completion.
Answer. The Court ordered deadline for completing the Trinity
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is July 9, 2004. In
the next few weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice anticipates
requesting the Court's consideration of a delay in completing the SEIS.
The interim steps required to complete the SEIS are (1) issue
Administrative Draft SEIS, (2) agency comment period, (3) respond to
agency comments, (4) issue public draft SEIS, (5) public comment
period, (6) complete Sec. 7 consultation under the Endangered Species
Act, (7) respond to public comments, and (8) complete SEIS. A schedule
for these interim activities will be available upon the Court's
consideration of our request.
Question 5. Would enactment of S. 1097 require any adjustments in
the amount or scheduling of releases of water from the Trinity River
Division of the Central Valley Project that are provided for in the
December 19, 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision issued by the
Secretary?
Answer. No. The decision by the Secretary of the Interior on the
amount and scheduling of releases of water from the Trinity River
Division was made pursuant to provisions of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act. The proposed legislation does not address Trinity
River Division operations.
Question 6. Would the Napa Proposal, if adopted, require any
adjustments in the amount or scheduling of releases of water from the
Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project that are provided
for in the December 19, 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision issued by
the Secretary?
Answer. No. The Napa Proposition is silent on Trinity River
Division operations. All project operation modeling has assumed
implementation of the Trinity River Record of Decision. Although
operations of the Trinity River Division can affect water supplies
available in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, there is no
reference in the Proposition regarding adjustments in the amount or
scheduling of releases that are provided for in the December 19, 2000
Trinity River Record of Decision issued by the Secretary of the
Interior.
Question 7. Does the Administration agree with the views expressed
by the California Secretary of Resources in her October 2, 2003 letter
to Senators Feinstein and Boxer that
``[N]othing in the Napa Proposal jeopardizes implementation the
Trinity River Record of Decision;'' and
``[T]he instream flow schedule in the Trinity River ROD is the
foundation for restoration of the Trinity River and its native fish.''
Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) agrees that
nothing in the Napa Proposition jeopardizes the Trinity River Record of
Decision (ROD). Interior also agrees that the Trinity ROD provides the
basis for addressing the restoration of the Trinity River and its
native fish in a scientific manner using an adaptive management
strategy.
Question 8. Do you believe that the Trinity River ROD
implementation should occur prior to implementation of the Napa
Proposal? Why or why not?
Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior supports moving forward
on parallel tracks for implementation of these actions. Both Trinity
River Division operations and integrated Central Valley Project/State
Water Project operations (Napa Proposition) will be included in the
Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the
Operational Criteria and Plan for the projects. Neither action can be
implemented until that consultation is complete. Implementation of
these actions will also require completion of separate, required
environmental impact analysis. At that point, final decisions can be
made on implementation of these actions.
Question 9. Is it the Department's position that it is upholding
its trust responsibility to the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes with respect to
Trinity River restoration? Please explain.
Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) is upholding
its trust responsibility to the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes by continuing to
resolve the present Trinity litigation and support the Trinity Flow
Record of Decision (ROD) by using those flows in all future condition
model runs for the Operational Criteria and Plan. In addition, Interior
is moving forward with the implementation of the non-flow aspects of
the ROD. Interior has spent over $100 million on the Trinity River
Restoration Program.
Question 10. Has the Calfed Program to date helped to increase
water supply reliability for urban and agricultural water users? Will
it do so in the future?
Answer. Yes. In the first three years of implementation, the
Environmental Water Account (EWA) has secured regulatory commitments to
stabilize the water supplies of the State Water Project (SWP) and
Central Valley Water Project (CVP) while providing additional
protection to sensitive Bay/Delta fish species. Although 2003 was a dry
year, both SWP and CVP allocations to their users south and west of the
Delta were at least 75 percent of contractor requests by late summer.
The EWA provides the Project and Management Agencies the ability to
plan in advance for operations changes taken to protect fish. This
proactive approach to resource protection not only reduces conflict and
uncertainty, it permits more timely responses and helps to avoid crisis
management. With EWA, time is not lost negotiating the scale, duration,
or timing of an operations response, or in weighing of possible project
impacts (since EWA compensates for them).
Authorization of a long-term EWA is necessary to maintain and
improve water supply reliability with the flexibility envisioned in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision.
Question 11. Please list accomplishments of the Program to date
with respect to ecosystem restoration. Answer. The CALFED Bay-Delta
Program Record of Decision included the Ecosystem Restoration Program
(ERP) Plan which detailed six goals for the ERP: (1) recover endangered
and other at-risk species and native biotic communities; (2)
rehabilitate ecological processes; (3) maintain or enhance harvested
species populations; (4) protect and restore habitats; (5) prevent
establishment of and reduce impacts from non-native invasive species;
and (6) improve or maintain water and sediment quality.
Since its inception, ERP has funded more than 400 ecosystem
restoration projects totaling nearly $480 million. The number of
projects and funds allocated is one way of measuring ERP progress, and
it is worth noting that most ERP-funded projects meet more than one ERP
goal. Therefore, the information in the following Table is based upon
the topic areas which interconnect the ERP goals.
ERP PROJECTS BY TOPIC AREA AND FUNDING ALLOCATION \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount #
Topic name (millions) Percentage Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Screens and Passages............. $112 23% 67
Local Watershed Stewardship........... $18 4% 50
Ecosystem Water and Sediment Quality.. $39 8% 47
Shallow Water Tidal and Marsh Habitat. $62 13% 37
Environmental Education............... $8 2% 34
Fishery Assessments................... $9 2% 25
Restoration of Multiple Habitats...... $61 13% 28
Channel Dynamics and Sediment $47 10% 26
Transport............................
Non-Native Invasive Species........... $7 1% 23
Riparian Habitat...................... $22 5% 21
Floodplains and Bypasses.............. $15 3% 12
Uplands and Wildlife Friendly $45 10% 7
Agriculture..........................
Special Status Species................ $14 3% 12
Environmental Water Management........ $6 1% 3
Natural Flow Regimes.................. $11 2% 9
---------------------------------
Totals............................ $476 100% 401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ERP figures include state, Federal and California Urban Water User
funding sources.
One of the key successes of the CALFED Bay-Delta program was the
recent (September 22, 2003) removal of the Sacramento splittail from
the Federal threatened and endangered species list. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) found that threats to the species are being
addressed through habitat restoration actions such as the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and that
as a result, the splittail is not likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
Two projects, the Staten Island Project and the Robinson Ranch
Merced River Salmon Restoration Project, illustrate both the progress
of the ERP and its commitment to integrating ecosystem restoration
goals with other Program element goals.
The Staten Island Project is a prime example of wildlife-friendly
agriculture and habitat protection. In 2001, ERP contributed $35
million (one-half of the purchase price) to help acquire Staten Island
to allow for a contiguous habitat corridor reaching from Stone Lakes to
the Mokelumne Forks confluence. This corridor was one identified in
CALFED planning documents. Staten Island, now part of the Cosumnes
River Preserve, provides winter habitat for sandhill cranes and other
waterfowl, while a 9,200 acre wildlife-friendly farm continues
operation under the auspices of The Nature Conservancy. As part of its
wildlife-friendly operations, parts of Staten Island are periodically
inundated with water which reduces the threat of catastrophic flooding
in the North Delta. The Staten Island Project contributes to local
economic stability by keeping farmland in production, enhancing
wildlife tourism opportunities, and supporting Delta flood protection
efforts.
The Robinson Ranch Merced River Salmon Restoration Project is an
example of how agencies such as the USFWS, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, the Merced River Stakeholders Group and the landowner,
Robinson Ranch, Inc. collaborated to restore Merced River reaches
crucial to salmon spawning and rearing that were degraded as a result
of floods, mining, and other activities. This multi-phased project
addressed reconstruction of the river channel to scale the new channel
form to match current, post-dam flows. By doing this, the flow of the
river is refocused to self-maintain spawning beds and other restored
habitats. The Robinson Ranch Merced River Salmon Restoration Project
supports the understanding that when habitat is sustained, even at
lower than historic flows, both ecosystem function and water supply
reliability goals can be met. In this instance, the restored reach of
the Merced River supports 25 percent of the salmon spawning of the
entire river. Both wildlife and agriculture benefit from this project,
which serves as an example of what can be achieved with a farmer who is
an active and willing partner and beneficiary of restoration efforts.
The CALFED ROD commits the implementing agencies to integrating
their activities with other program elements. The ERP is accomplishing
this integration and linkages through the ``Single Blueprint'' concept
for restoration and species recovery within the geographic scope of the
ERP. The Single Blueprint is not so much a single document as it is the
shared vision of ecosystem restoration that is sustained through
collaboration and cooperation among ERP, the Implementing Agencies,
other CALFED agencies and stakeholders.
Certain ecosystem restoration activities we are implementing
pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA),
commonly referred to as Category A&B projects, are coordinated through
the Single Blueprint and support the goals and objectives of the CALFED
ERP. Implementation of CVPIA activities have resulted in positive
effects to the numerous species and habitat types throughout the
Central Valley ecosystem. The investment and results of the CVPIA
Category A&B program activities organized by the authorizing section of
the legislation are as follows:
Anadromous Fish--Habitat Restoration ($124 million investment).
3406(b)(1)--Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Established AFRP,
developed Restoration Plan to guide implementation of efforts;
partnered with local watershed groups; acquired over 8,200 acres and
enhanced over 1,000 acres of riparian habitat; restored over 5--6 miles
of stream channel and placed 62,300 tons of spawning gravels;
eliminated predator habitat in San Joaquin River tributaries; and
provided for fish protective devices at seven diversion structures on
Butte Creek.
3406(b)(1)--Habitat Restoration Program. Established Habitat
Restoration Program and San Joaquin River Riparian Habitat Restoration
Program; helped acquire conservation easements on 88,364 acres of
native habitat and restore 1,111 acres.
3406(b)(2)--Dedicated CVP Yield. Up to 800,000 acre-feet of Central
Valley Project water has been applied each year to improve stream flows
for salmon, steelhead, and other fish on the Sacramento, American, and
Stanislaus rivers and on Clear Creek. This water has also been used to
increase survival of juvenile anadromous fish passing through the Delta
on their way to the sea, and to assist the CVP to meet endangered
species and water quality obligations.
3406(b)(3)--Water Acquisition Program (Anadromous Fish Focus).
Acquired 913,952 acre-feet of water for anadromous fish from 1993-2002.
3406(b)(12)--Clear Creek Fishery Restoration. Removed Saeltzer Dam
and diversion; increased flows; restored 2.0 miles of stream channel
and 68 acres of floodplain; added 54,000 tons of spawning gravel; 152
acres of shaded fuelbreak have been constructed and 12 miles of roadway
treated to control erosion.
3406(b)(13)--Gravel Replenishment and Riparian Habitat Protection.
Developed long-term plans for CVP streams; placed 111,488 tons of
gravel in Sacramento, American and Stanislaus Rivers.
3406(b)(23)--Trinity River Fishery Flow Evaluation Program.
Conducted flow evaluation studies; completed EIR/EIS to analyze range
of alternatives for restoring and maintaining fish populations
downstream from Lewiston Dam; Record of Decision signed December 2000;
completing Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement as directed by
Federal court order. SEIS scheduled to be completed by July 2004.
Anadromous Fish--Structural Measures ($264.6 million investment)
3406(b)(4)--Tracy Pumping Plant Mitigation. Improved predator
removal; increased biological oversight of pumping; developed better
research program, new lab and aquaculture facilities; improved and
modified existing facilities.
3406(b)(5)--Contra Costa Canal Pumping Plant Mitigation.
Established cooperative program for fish screen project for Rock Slough
intake of Contra Costa Canal; 90% designs and environmental evaluation
completed. New short-term, low-cost mitigation measures are being
developed to allow for an extension of the construction completion
date. Final design and construction pending results of CALFED Stage 1
and other studies.
3406(b)(6)--Shasta Temperature Control Device. Completed in 1997at
a cost of $80 million. Has been operated to reduce river temperatures
without stopping power generation operations (power revenue sales as a
result of implementing the Shasta TCD are estimated to be $25 million/
yr).
3406(b)(10)--Red Bluff Dam Fish Passage Program. Completed interim
actions and modification of Red Bluff Diversion Dam to meet needs of
fish and water users; studies of fish passage alternatives is ongoing.
Given guidance by the court on the timing of ESA and NEPA compliance
activities, work on the EIS/EIR was suspended pending completion of the
ESA consultation for the CVP as a whole, and the OCAP consultation. A
final EIS/EIR is now anticipated in FY04.
3406(b)(11)--Coleman National Fish Hatchery Restoration and Keswick
Fish Trap Modification. Construction of Livingston Stone National Fish
Hatchery--the newly constructed hatchery contains facilities for
broodstock holding, spawning, and rearing. The production capacity of
the facility is about 250,000 juveniles. Between 30,000 and 250,000
juveniles have been reared at the facility annually since it was
constructed. As a result primarily of the release of brood year 1998,
it has been estimated that about 300 hatchery-origin winter-run
chinoolk salmon adults from this program returned to the upper
Sacramento River in 2001
3406(b)(17)--Anderson-Cottonwood I.D. Fish Passage. Modified dam
and operations to improve fish passage; designed new fish ladders and
screens.
3406(b)(20)--Glenn-Colusa I.D. Pumping Plant. Constructed fish
screen for 3,000 cfs diversion; completed water control structure and
access bridge. Completed improvements on side channel.
3406(b)(21)--Anadromous Fish Screen Program. Established program;
installed 17 screens and 3 fish ladders at diversions totaling 3,200
cfs capacity; removed 4 dams and 1 4 diversions. Three screens under
construction, others in design. Once the screens under construction and
in design are completed, Reclamation will have screened 75% of the
diverted water on the Sacramento River.
Responses of Bennett Raley to Questions From Chairman Domenici
Question 1. In your testimony, you note that appropriations for the
Calfed Program are unlikely to reach S. 1097's $880 million
authorization level.
What is a reasonable federal appropriation target for fiscal years
2004 through 2007?
Answer. We cannot speculate as to a level of appropriations for
future years, as those decisions must be made in the context of future
budgets; our statement regarding the $880 million is based on our
experience with recent CALFED budgets. The CBDA has launched an effort
to re-examine the project milestones in the existing ROD to more
realistically reflect likely funding and pace of the program.
Question 2. It is my understanding that S. 1097 will not solve all
of California's water problems. Instead, these are numerous California
water projects that are not included in the 2000 ROD.
What California water issues are resolved by S. 1097?
Answer. Your understanding is correct. The proposed legislation
sets out the CALFED BayDelta Program Record of Decision as a framework
within which the implementing agencies will undertake actions within
the CALFED Bay-Delta solution area to protect drinking water quality,
restoring ecological health, improving water supply reliability, and
protecting and ensuring the integrity of Delta levees in a balanced
manner. There are numerous other water management activities going on
in California that, while compatible with CALFED, are for the most part
not connected.
What additional authorization requests should the Committee
anticipate for other California water projects?
Answer. Depending on the findings and conclusions of the surface
storage feasibility studies, construction authorization may be
requested. It is difficult to anticipate future needs for Congressional
action on other California water projects.
Question 3. From your testimony, it seems that the federal
government already possesses most of the authorities needed to
implement the Calfed Program.
If that is the case, what is the most appropriate form for any
Calfed legislation approved by this Committee?
Answer. The Federal agencies have been able to rely on over fifty
existing authorities (passed by Congress) that continue to enable
Federal agency participation. The key areas in which additional
authorization is necessary are as follows:
Environmental Water Account (EWA)--Authorization is required to
implement a long-term EWA in a fashion that supports the vision and
flexibility envisioned in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of
Decision (ROD). The establishment and successful operation of a long-
term EWA will be one of the most significant accomplishments of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program in reducing the conflicts between fisheries
and water project operators.
Levee Stability Program--Authorization is necessary for feasibility
study for risk assessment strategy, Delta Emergency management plan,
dredged material reuse on Delta Islands, and best management practices
to control and reverse land subsidence is needed as noted in the ROD.
Implement Conveyance Program Elements--Authorization is needed for
feasibility studies for the increased pumping to 10,300 cfs at H.O.
Banks Pumping Plant, fish screen and intake at Clifton Court, and San
Luis Reservoir Low Point Project.
Ecosystem Restoration Program Financial Assistance--Authorization
is needed to carry out the Ecosystem Restoration Program activities
through the use of grants and cooperative agreements with non-Federal
entities
Cross-Cut Appropriation--Interior supports the concept of a cross-
cut appropriation which we believe will reduce inefficiencies and
further improve Federal agency participation and recognition of
implementation requirements. A cross-cut appropriation would more
accurately reflect the contributions of the participating Federal
agencies and lessen the risk to other Reclamation funded programs and
projects in the Western states.
Question 4. The process followed by the federal-state working group
to develop the CALFED Program included negotiating a complex suite of
inter-related projects, issuing the Record of Decision, developing a
State-based management organization, building financial and public
support, and implementing a myriad of important state water policy
modifications.
Do you feel that this approach is an appropriate template for other
Federal-State water management relationships?
Answer. Yes. While this approach and adaptive process was developed
in response to the complex and competing resource needs of California
its fundamental elements and processes could work well elsewhere. The
Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee provides an effective coordination
structure to facilitate stakeholder involvement in CALFED Program
implementation. However, the newly formed state oversight agency, the
California Bay-Delta Authority, does pose several complex legal and
institutional issues between the state and Federal implementing
agencies that effect management of the Program.
Based on experience to date, what would you do to improve the
process?
Answer. The cooperative and collaborative approach to problem-
solving is a hallmark of the CALFED Program. We continue to grapple
with the evolving state and Federal agency institutional and legal
roles in implementing the Program.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
South Delta Water Agency,
Stockton, CA, October 28, 2003.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1097
Dear Senator Feinstein: The South Delta Water Agency is writing to
express our appreciation for your efforts to resolve water related
problems in California. At this time, Delta interests are negotiating
with Central Valley Project and State Water Project Contractors to try
and resolve some of the ongoing issues involved with the export of
water from the Delta. Although the negotiations are encouraging,
fundamental differences have yet to be worked out. In light of those
differences, as well as the areas of agreement, we recommend that
proposed legislation regarding CALFED not move forward at this time as
the negotiations anticipate changes or additions to CALFED's Record of
Decision. Notwithstanding this position, we offer the following
suggestions which we believe would clarify and strengthen the bill
without changing its intent and fundamental content. These comments do
not include some of the other issues in our discussions, many of which
we would eventually seek to have in legislation.
Our suggestions relate primarily to three issues. First, CALFED's
premise of ``all parties getting better together'' does not take into
account how the export projects have adversely impacted third parties.
It is our position that Delta interests should not ``get better'' along
with other interests, but rather should first be protected from the
adverse impacts caused by exports. Hence, providing full mitigation to
the projects' impacts should occur before the projects are allowed to
increase exports or export rates. We believe our negotiations will soon
define the Delta protections that must and can reasonably be provided
to assure that the Delta's in-channel water supply and quality are
adequately protected from the impacts of existing and proposed exports,
and also provisions to reduce the over-commitment of New Melones water
yield that has resulted from CVP operations. Our suggestions are
compatible with our negotiations. Second, the suggestions are to help
correct the confusion that has resulted from a prevalent belief that
water storage capacity results in an increase in water supply
regardless of whether the storage is filled with water that would
otherwise be lost, such as by capturing excess Delta outflow. Storage
can be used for other purposes, but can't increase water supply if it
is filled with water that is basically just reallocated in time or in
purpose of use. Third, we propose some additions to the CALFED
reporting requirements. We believe these additions are needed in order
for Congress to be adequately informed on both the direct and the
indirect consequences of the Program.
Our suggestions are as follows:
[Note: The suggested changes have been retained in subcommittee
files.]
Again, our negotiations with export interests anticipate changes to
the CALFED ROD and programs thereunder. Until such negotiations are
finalized, we do not think any legislation should go forward at this
time as we will be proposing additional specifics for such legislation.
We do believe the parties' negotiations will be completed sometime near
the end of November, and we will then know better the areas of
agreement and disagreement. Notwithstanding this, the above suggestions
are an indication of our position on what needs to be done through the
CALFED process. We also want to thank you again for your past
discussions with us on various matters, including your discussions on
flood control and estate taxes with Alex Hildebrand.
Very truly yours,
John Herrick,
Counsel and Manager.
______
Statement Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman, on Behalf of the
Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa, CA
Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Subcommittee, the Hoopa
Valley Tribe respectfully requests that the Congress not extend
authorization of the Calfed program prior to implementation of the
Trinity River restoration record of decision consistent with existing
federal statutes, including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Throughout California and in many parts of the Nation, the Trinity
River is recognized as one of the last wild and scenic rivers in
America. It is a natural resource treasure that should be protected for
the benefit of all Americans. For communities of the North Coast, the
Trinity River supports a regional economy based on commercial and sport
fishing, recreation and tourism. Most importantly from the perspective
of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Trinity River is central to our religion
and culture, and it is the source of our fishery on which we have
depended since time immemorial.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation formally proposed diversion
of the Trinity River to the Central Valley in 1952. Having been advised
by the Secretary of the Interior that slightly more than 50% of the
Trinity's flow at Lewiston, California, would be diverted and that the
balance would remain available for release to the Trinity River,
Congress authorized the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central
Valley Project (CVP) in 1955. To this day, the Trinity River is the
only source of CVP water that is imported to the Central Valley.
In order to protect North Coast communities from the effects of the
Trinity River Division, Congress expressly limited diversions from the
Trinity River to that water deemed by the Secretary to be surplus to
the needs of Trinity River basin fish and wildlife and communities
downstream of Lewiston Dam.
The State of California issued a number of permits associated with
the Trinity River Division in 1959.\1\ Among the conditions established
by the state in the permits were Condition 8 \2\ and Condition 9 \3\
that, consistent with Congress' instruction, recognized and protected
the area of origin interests of Trinity/Klamath River basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Water Permits under Applications Nos. 5627, 15374, 15376,
16767 and 16768 (September 16, 1959).
\2\ Condition 8. ``Permittee shall at all times bypass or release
over, around or through Lewiston Dam the following quantities of water
down the natural channel of Trinity River for the protection,
preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife from said dam to the
mouth of said stream;
October 1 through October 31--200 cfs
November 1 through November 30--250 cfs
December 1 through December 31--200 cfs
January 1 through September 30--150 cfs
Any water released through said Lewiston Dam for use in the fish
hatchery now under construction adjacent thereto shall be considered as
partial fulfillment of the above schedule.''
\3\ Condition 9. ``Permittee shall release sufficient water from
Trinity and/or Lewiston Reservoirs into the Trinity River so that not
less than an annual quantity of 50,000 acre-feet will be available for
the beneficial use of Humboldt County and other downstream users.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tragically, upon completion of the Trinity River Division in 1964,
the Bureau of Reclamation instead diverted up to 90% of the Trinity's
flow at Lewiston with immediate and devastating effects on the fishery.
Trinity River fish species today are listed or are candidates for
listing under the Endangered Species Act. Tribal, sport, and commercial
fishing interests, along with federal, state, and local governments
have spent the last 35 years working to restore the river and limit
diversions to what Congress originally intended.
In a series of laws, the United States Congress acted to restore
the Trinity River fishery to those population levels that existed prior
to construction of the Trinity River Division. The ``Trinity River Flow
Evaluation--Final Report'' was completed in June 1999, and the
Secretary of the Interior, with the support of the State of California
and the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, adopted the Report's
fishery flow requirements in December 2000.
The fishery flows require 47% of the Trinity's average annual flow;
the remaining 53% is available for diversion to the Central Valley,
practically the same volume originally intended to be diverted by the
Bureau of Reclamation when it proposed the project in the 1950s.
Regrettably, the Bureau of Reclamation has been barred from
releasing the water needed for trinity River restoration as a result of
litigation filed by the Westlands Water District and the San Luis and
Delta-Mendota Water Authority, among others. That litigation is now
pending in the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The State of
California has filed a brief in support of the Trinity River
restoration decision. In the meantime, Trinity restoration remains on
hold; it is now seven years past the deadline Congress set for the
Secretary to get the restoration program underway.
On July 18, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Resources Agency
completed a ``Draft Proposition Concerning CVP/SWP Integrated
Operations'', also known as the ``Napa Proposal''. Certain aspects of
the Napa Proposal require enactment of authorizations provided for in
S. 1097. We believe that, in its present form, the Napa Proposal is
likely to generate misunderstanding and future causes of controversy
over the relationship between the coordinated operation of the federal
and state water projects in the Central Valley and the priority
established under federal and state law to water from the Trinity River
Division for: (1) fish and wildlife preservation and propagation in the
Trinity River; and (2) other beneficial uses of water by Humboldt
County and users downstream of Trinity River Division facilities.
The Napa Proposal, among other things, will enable increased
exports of water from the San Francisco Bay Delta through coordinated
operation of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project.
Nothing in the Napa Proposal or S. 1097 recognizes the fact that the
restoration of the Trinity River requires a reduction in the diversions
of Trinity River water to the Central Valley.
It is generally understood that the Westlands Water District and
San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority will be major beneficiaries
of the increased Delta exports enabled by the Napa Proposal if
implemented by means of the authority and funding provided for in S.
1097. Westlands Water District and San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water
Authority have recently proposed reductions in the planned Trinity
River flows in order to increase the benefits they expect from the Napa
Proposition. The Department of the Interior and the Hoopa Valley Tribe
rejected the reductions because they lacked acceptable scientific
justification. We do not believe that the Congress should make the
benefits of Calfed available to those entities so long as they persist
with their attacks against Trinity River restoration.
Governor Davis' administration addressed the Napa Proposal in an
October 2, 2003, letter (attached) from Resources Secretary Mary
Nichols to Senators Feinstein and Boxer, in which Secretary Nichols
stated:
nothing in the Napa Proposal jeopardizes implementation of
the Trinity River Record of Decision (ROD). In fact, the
proposed revisions to the SWP/CVP Operations Criteria and Plan
(OCAP) assume that the Trinity River ROD will be implemented as
envisioned in December 2000.
The State continues to support the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes,
and Trinity County in their efforts to implement the Trinity
River ROD . . . We believe the instream flow schedule in the
Trinity River ROD is the foundation for restoration of the
Trinity River and its native fish, and we will insist this
issue is settled prior to implementation of the Napa proposal.
We are grateful for Secretary Nichols position, but we have no
indication whether California's incoming administration will adhere to
it. At the same time, the Bureau of Reclamation has informally advised
us that the Napa Proposal could be implemented without the need to
reduce the amounts of water from the Trinity River Division needed for
fishery restoration. However, the Bureau has declined to give us
written reassurance to that effect, notwithstanding that federal and
state laws clearly give priority to Trinity basin water needs over
diversions to the Central Valley.
Our Tribe never intended to be drawn into Central Valley water
management issues. But because of Westlands attack on our fishery,
implementation of Trinity restoration may well be delayed until after
planning decisions are made with respect to the Napa proposal, long-
term Central Valley Project contracts have been renewed, and a revised
operating plan for the state and federal water projects has been
adopted. We cannot stand by while Central Valley planning decisions are
made that potentially leave our rights at risk.
This is especially true in view of the final National Research
Council Report, ``Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River
Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery (October 21,
2003). The report at pages 250-253 makes the following points (all are
quotations):
Trinity River flows influence water temperature and quality
in the lower Klamath River and its estuary (p. 250).
The Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam and the Trinity River
have the same fish fauna, including runs of salmon . . . salmon
and steelhead from the two systems continuously mix. Id.
Immigrating spawning adults and emigrating smolts from the
Trinity River rely on lower Klamath River water temperature and
quality to support their success in terms of egg quality,
osmoregulatory ability, and survival. Id.
Efforts to conserve coho salmon and other declining fishes
must take both systems into account. Id.
[T]he Secretary of the Interior in December 2000 issued a
Record of Decision (ROD) recognizing that long-term
sustainability of the Trinity River's fishery resources
requires rehabilitation of the river (p. 251-252).
The ROD calls for specific annual flows designed to vary with
water-year type and patterned to mimic natural variability in
annual flows. (p. 252).
Because of lawsuits by Central Valley water users challenging
the EIS/EIR, however, the new flow regime has not yet been
fully implemented. Id.
It is vital that management of the Trinity River, including
releases from Lewiston Dam, be viewed in the context of the
entire Klamath watershed. The two systems are inextricably
linked and are dependent upon each other for long-term success.
Efforts are presently underway to use enhanced flow releases
from the Trinity to reduce the likelihood of fish kills in the
lower Klamath. This represents an important step forward in
cooperative management for the sake of the entire basin, rather
than a single component. (p. 252-253).
The foregoing statements by the National Research Council
demonstrate the need to ensure that the waters of the Trinity River
that are stored in the Trinity River Division of the CVP be released:
(1) as required by the ROD for the mainstem Trinity
restoration and
(2) as required for fishery protection in the lower Klamath
and pursuant to Humboldt County's 1959 CVP contract.
______
State of California,
Resources Agency,
Sacramento, CA, October 2, 2003.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Congress, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Congress, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Senators Feinstein and Boxer: I am writing to clarify the state's
position on the ``Napa Proposal'', which has been the subject of much
interest and at times misunderstanding. The state agency participants
in the California Bay-Delta Program have received several letters and
questions from members of Congress, the California legislature, and
interest groups. These letters and questions have raised valid
concerns, and we take these concerns seriously.
THE NAPA PROPOSAL IS NOT A DECISION DOCUMENT
The CALFED process is designed to include a broad range of
stakeholders, collaboration among the State and federal agencies, and
the development of solutions that address multiple benefits based on
the best available information. I remain committed to maintaining this
open and transparent process, but I also recognize that from time to
time various stakeholder groups will caucus and develop proposals to be
considered within the scope of the Bay-Delta Program as a whole.
It is in the CALFED context that I believe the Napa Proposal was
developed, and it is within this context that it should be considered.
The Napa Proposal is not a CALFED decision document; it is a proposed
set of State Water Project/Central Valley Project (SWP/CVP) operating
rules that will be evaluated and considered as part of a larger set of
actions to improve the water supply reliability, water quality, and
ecosystem health of the Bay-Delta system.
These actions, as described in the CALFED Record of Decision,
include the South Delta Improvements Program (to increase the SWP's
pumping flexibility to 8,500 cubic feet per second), the Environmental
Water Account, the Delta Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie,
and related actions to protect water quality and local diverters in the
Delta. Each of these actions will be fully evaluated and reviewed
through CEQA and NEPA, through the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee,
and through other public processes established by the California Bay-
Delta Authority (Authority).
swp and cvp operations must be better coordinated to meet the multiple
OBJECTIVES OF THE CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
The Authority agencies have been working since the fall of 2002 to
coordinate and integrate the assumptions and schedules of the above
actions, so that elected officials, stakeholders, and the public have a
better understanding of their costs, benefits, and impacts. But as the
discussions continued, it became clear that progress would be stalled
and that fewer water supply, water quality, and environmental benefits
would be achieved through these actions unless the SWP and CVP worked
to better coordinate their operations. As a result of the Napa
discussions, we now have a proposal that may accomplish that goal, and
a renewed commitment to support an integrated package of state and
federal actions.
During the last two months, the Authority agencies and stakeholders
have been working closely to analyze the impacts of the Napa Proposal
with hydrologic and biologic modeling, together with other elements of
the South Delta Improvements Program and alternative approaches to
develop a long-term Environmental Water Account. These analyses will be
fully described in draft environmental review documents to be issued
for public review and comment later this year. Following an extensive
public review process, the agencies expect to issue an integrated set
of final decisions, together with a financing plan, in the summer of
2004. I remain confident that this integrated set of actions will
significantly improve water supply reliability, water quality, and
ecosystem health of the Bay-Delta system.
the state continues to support implementation of the trinity river rod
It is important to note that nothing in the Napa Proposal
jeopardizes implementation of the Trinity River Record of Decision
(ROD). In fact, the proposed revisions to the SWP/CVP Operations
Criteria and Plan (OCAP) assume that the Trinity River ROD will be
implemented as envisioned in December 2000.
The State continues to support the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes, and
Trinity County in their efforts to implement the Trinity River ROD,
including the development of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement as required by court order. We believe the instream flow
schedule in the Trinity River ROD is the foundation for restoration of
the Trinity River and its native fish, and we will insist this issue is
settled prior to implementation of the Napa proposal.
Thank you for your continued support of the California Bay-Delta
Program and efforts to provide for its federal authorization. If you
have any further questions, please contact me directly or Tim Ramirez,
Assistant Secretary for Water Policy and Science, in my office.
Yours sincerely,
Mary D. Nichols,
Secretary for Resources.
As a means of disentangling the Trinity River's prior entitlement
to water from the Trinity River Division from Central Valley water
resources planning, the Hoopa Valley Tribe seeks legislation to permit
prompt implementation of the Trinity restoration program. (Attached.)
So long as the Trinity restoration program remains stalled, the
Tribe will continue to intervene in matters involving California water
planning that affect tribal trust resources. Our goal is a guarantee
that federal and state laws that give priority to the use of Trinity
River Division water for in-basin needs over exports to the Central
Valley will be fully enforced as set forth in the Trinity River Record
of Decision. The proposed legislation attached to this testimony would
do that.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Legislation Regarding Trinity River Record of Decision
Section 1.
The purposes of this Act are to meet:
(a) Federal trust responsibilities to protect tribal fishery
resources; and
(b) Fishery restoration goals referred to in section 3406 (b)(23)
of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, 106
Stat. 4706 (October 30, 1992).
Section 2.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the record of
decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service entitled
``Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration'', issued by the Secretary
of the Interior with the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe on
December 19, 2000 (referred to in this section as the ``record of
decision''), shall be considered to comply with all provisions of law
under which, and subject to which, the record of decision was issued.
(b) Upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, and
any other person with respect to which the record of decision describes
any right, authority, or obligation, shall implement and otherwise
comply with the record of decision.
(c) The Secretary shall incorporate the record of decision into any
review of the operation of the Central Valley Project pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act.