[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 FEDERAL BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE CALFED PROGRAM AND
ITS SOLUTIONS TO THE WATER PROBLEMS
__________
APRIL 17, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-039cc WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California SAM FARR, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RON KIND, Wisconsin
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ---------- ----------
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ---------- ----------
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Valerie West, Professional Staff
Christopher Stearns, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 17, 1997...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a U.S. Representative from
California; and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power.. 1
Radanovich, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from
California................................................. 103
Statement of Witnesses:
California Bay-Delta Water Coalition (prepared statement).... 64
Garamendi, John R., Deputy Secretary, Department of the
Interior................................................... 8
Prepared statement....................................... 49
Golb, Richard K., Executive Director, Northern California
Water Association.......................................... 31
Prepared statement....................................... 70
Johnson, Leslie Friedman, Director of Agency Relations,
California Regional Office, The Nature Conservancy......... 28
Prepared statement....................................... 61
Kamei, Rosemary, Director, Santa Clara Valley Water District. 27
Prepared statement....................................... 59
McPeak, Sunne Wright, President and CEO, Bay Area Council.... 30
Prepared statement....................................... 68
Payne, W. Ashley, owner, Ashley Payne Farms.................. 33
Prepared statement....................................... 71
Perciasepe, Robert, Assistant Administrator for Water,
Environmental Protection Agency............................ 11
Prepared statement....................................... 54
Snow, Lester, Executive Director, CALFED Bay-Delta Program... 3
Prepared statement....................................... 46
Wheeler, Douglas P., Secretary for Resources, State of
California................................................. 10
Prepared statement....................................... 50
Additional material supplied:
California's Bay-Delta--Restoring a National Treasure
(report)................................................... 82
Category III 1995-1996 Restoration Projects.................. 74
Communications submitted:
California Delegation joint letter of February 25, 1997, to
Chairman Bob Livingston.................................... 98
McCollum, Michael: Letter of April 14, 1997, to Hon. John
Doolittle.................................................. 75
Wilson, Pete: Letter of March 31, 1997, to Hon. Joseph M.
McDade..................................................... 54
FISCAL YEAR 1998 FEDERAL FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE CALFED PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:34 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. John Doolittle (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order. We have set today's meeting to hear testimony
concerning the fiscal year 1998 Federal budget request for the
CALFED program.
I apologize to our witnesses. I don't think I have ever
started a hearing more than five minutes late, and I guess if
we were operating on Pacific Coast time, we would be more or
less on that standard today, but unfortunately, it is Eastern
time here.
We had an extraordinary situation involving the address of
the Speaker of the House to the full House of Representatives,
which was not anticipated at the time this hearing was
scheduled, so I apologize, and I realize that people have been
inconvenienced and may need to adjust their schedules.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
Mr. Doolittle. The CALFED program promises to be one of the
most important issues considered by this Subcommittee in the
105th Congress. It represents a major Federal and State
commitment to solving California's water needs and sets the
stage for future water management policies and facilities
within California.
It is critical that we use this opportunity to meet the
needs of all of our constituents--agriculture and urban,
landowner and conservationist, business owner and
recreationists alike.
Let us also be clear that the funding for the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program under consideration today is not limited to a
funding request for this year alone, nor is it limited to the
three years of the current authorization. It is a program
likely to involve decades of Federal and State funding
commitments.
The current CALFED authorization, the Federal authorization
as large as it is proposes implementation of only certain
limited aspects of the program in this and the next two fiscal
years, while postponing the authorization and funding request
for most of the program into future years.
All of the CALFED alternatives under consideration are
estimated to range in cost from $4,000,000 to $8,000,000, an
amount to be paid over 20 to 30 years. This is the time to hear
a solid commitment from those most interested in the current
CALFED program objectives, that they will be full participants
and supporters of the latter phases of the project, when the
relative funding for projects they now support is on the
decline.
Another issue of concern is the need to develop criteria to
assess the successful implementation of the earlier portions of
the program. When the object of an authorization is a dam or a
water recycling plant, success is achieved when the facility is
completed and becomes operational. Not only do we currently
lack the specifics on the projects to be undertaken in this
phase of CALFED, but there are no measuring sticks to determine
that we have achieved a specified goal once the money has been
spent. How do we know that there will not just be an endless
flow of requests for new funding, based not on the need to
achieve a new goal, but rather because we haven't defined
success? If we do not define a measure of success, we will be
asked to spend unlimited resources with no hope of closure.
The CALFED program must incorporate milestones and
objective measurements that define when specific goals have
been met.
Finally, this phase of the program represents a major
public acquisition of private property rights. Much of the area
viewed as potential habitat, meander belts, and ecosystem
management zones is currently held by private interests. Their
predecessors built hundreds of miles of levees and reclaimed
tens of thousands of acres of land in the 1800's.
This land is now used throughout the delta and along the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to support a thriving rural
economy dedicated to farms, small businesses, mineral
extraction, recreation areas, and private residences.
If these private landowners are going to be asked to return
these lands and water rights to the public domain, a process
should be set up which is fair, expeditious, and easy for them
to use.
The preferred alternative in this case is that any
acquisition should be based on a willing seller and willing
buyer transaction. If that is not the case, we do not want to
endorse a program that acquires property through regulatory or
programmatic takings or forces people to sell out of sheer
frustration.
I do not believe that these concerns present insurmountable
obstacles. Rather, they represent reasonable, attainable goals
which should reflect the way government conducts its business.
The Federal California Bay Delta Environmental Enhancement Act
coupled with California Proposition 204 advance a partnership
with potential funding of nearly $1.5 billion.
It has the potential to be used to enhance the water
quality and environmental resources in the Bay-Delta, as well
as for other water resource activities in California. Yet how
it is administered will be a test of government's ability to
transition to a smarter, more efficient, less coercive mode of
operation. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Dooley, are you going to make an opening statement?
Mr. Dooley. Mr. Chairman, I think that I will not give an
opening statement, but rather thank all the participants who
have been waiting for some time for their testimony. I really
thank the leadership that has been shown by a number of the
people that are going to be testifying for putting together a
really diverse coalition which is committed, I think, to
finding constructive and positive solutions to some of the
water and environmental problems that have plagued California
for decades. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Now, if the Subcommittee members
will indulge me, I would just like to observe that it has come
to my attention, and frankly, has caused me great concern that
there have been some last-minute delays and changes in the 1997
water allocation announcement for the CVP contractors.
I think that it is unfortunate that the Fish and Wildlife
Service, one agency among the many CALFED agencies, can
continually take action at the last minute that threaten, the
efforts to build consensus among the various stakeholders. This
is the second year in a row that there have been last minute
blow-ups related to water allocations.
All the other parties at the table are operating in good
faith to provide as much water as possible for the environment
with as little economic impact on water users as possible. I am
very concerned that the Department of Interior does not have
the desire or perhaps the clout to rein in what has become a
rogue agency.
This is a far cry from Secretary Babbitt's commitment when
he was first appointed that his department would speak with one
voice. With that, let me invite our first panel of witnesses to
come forward, and if they would, to remain standing to take the
oath. If you will please raise your right hands?
Do you solemnly swear and affirm under penalty of perjury
that the responses given and statements made will be the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that each answered in the
affirmative.
We welcome you here. I think you are all familiar with our
five-minute rule of testimony. The lights are there as a guide.
I would like to mention that we asked Mr. Snow to give a
lengthier explanation, so he will have ten minutes for his
statement.
Let me introduce our distinguished panel. We have Mr.
Lester Snow, Executive Director of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. We have the Honorable John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary
from the Department of Interior; the Honorable Douglas P.
Wheeler, Secretary for Resources of the State of California;
and Mr. Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Gentlemen, we are very pleased to have you here, and Mr.
Snow, it is my understanding you will lead off this panel.
STATEMENT OF LESTER SNOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALFED BAY-DELTA
PROGRAM
Mr. Snow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Lester Snow. I am executive director of
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
What I would like to cover today is to give you an overview
of the program covering our basic approach and the status, but
also to spend a fair amount of time on what we refer to as
early implementation, how we begin improving the situation in
the Delta, and specifically the importance of Federal fiscal
year '98 funding commitment to that early implementation
effort.
First, I want to start with I guess what I would call my
overall conclusion, and that is that we cannot and we will not
fail in our efforts to bring a long-term solution to the Bay-
Delta system resource conflicts.
In this case, the we that I refer to is the State, Federal,
and local governments and perhaps more importantly, the
stakeholder community including environmental, urban, business,
and agricultural leaders coming together as a unit. In this
case, the we has realized that we must move forward and solve
this problem.
The reason that we will not fail is not because the current
crop of stakeholders or agency representatives who are smarter
or more insightful than the past generation, but more simply
that the consequences of failure have become so severe.
Included in the category of failure is inaction or status quo.
In the past, we have left things slide because there was
flexibility left in the system. We could put off decisions or
put off investments because there were no immediate
consequences. Those days are gone forever.
We see now the consequences of failure in terms of direct
impacts, like levee failures during flooding. We see the
decline of recreational and commercial fishing. We see risks to
water quality in terms of drinking water supplies, overall
reduction of water supply reliability, reduction of watershed
productivity, and perhaps more alarming for the long run and
perhaps less directly understood, a reduction in Pacific Rim
competitiveness and jobs unless we deal with these issues.
What we are facing are years of deferred investment and
decisions to not make changes because it is costly or
complicated or may result in conflict. We are seeing a slow but
methodical reversal of this deferred investment, first with the
creation of something called CALFED and the framework
agreement, then the accord, then Proposition 204, and now the
appropriation that we are seeing in the proposed fiscal year
'98 budget.
We must continue in this path and use Prop 204 and the
appropriation to renew the necessary investments in this system
so that we may succeed. I would like to switch now and try to
provide a basic overview to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and
to do that, I want to use a briefing book that I believe you
have been supplied, commonly referred to as the Federal
briefing packet, which I believe you have in front of you.
I know that some of the other speakers will draw attention
to this, and you will hear this a number of times, but I guess
part of the unique aspect of what we are doing is the joint
collaborative effort among State and Federal agencies. We have
as a basic foundation of our program stakeholder and general
public involvement. If we do not maintain stakeholder
involvement and we do not maintain general public access to our
program, we will fail, because that is how attempts in the past
have failed to reach conclusions to these problems.
We depend on a collaborative effort to find solutions. That
collaboration extends beyond the agencies to individual
landowners that must work with us to help us understand their
issues and find solutions that work.
If I could refer to pages four and five of the briefing
book, it will give you a basic organizational structure of
CALFED, organized under the Secretary of Interior and the
governor of the State of California, with the CALFED agencies
in fact forming a board of directors for the Bay-Delta program.
We have laid out a process in three phases, moving from
getting simple agreement on what the problem is to be solved in
this system all the way through phase three, which is
implementation of the solution. We have set up specific
objectives to cover the problem areas which we have identified
as water quality, ecosystem health, improved water supply
reliability, and system integrity or levee stability.
We have in phase one, which we completed last year,
identified three alternatives for addressing those issues in a
combined fashion. We are now in phase two which includes the
environmental documentation under State and Federal law and a
refinement of these alternatives so that we may reach a
preferred, a draft preferred alternative in November of 1997,
and a final preferred alternative in the fall of '98.
If you can look at page seven of the briefing packet, you
will see a very concise description of the nature of the
alternatives that we are moving forward with.
You will notice that each alternative is composed of what
we refer to as common programs, consideration of additional
storage, and finally modification of the way we convey water in
and around the Bay Area system.
Within the common program, we have water quality, system
integrity, ecosystem restoration, and water use efficiency.
What we are doing in phase two is refining these alternatives
and developing environmental documentation to support them as
we move forward.
We are dependent on a lot of public input, with emphasis on
actions and alternatives which address multiple objectives. We
want to avoid people simply trying to address their problem
that is separate from someone else's interests, and thus have
developed alternatives that attempt to address as many
objectives as possible.
For example, when we look at storage, we look at it not
just as it may be used for water supply, but also how storage
can be operated to improve water quality, fish flows, and flood
management, so we get as much benefit out of a single action as
possible.
All objectives must be addressed in an alternative. In
California, we refer to it as no one gets out alive. We are all
in this together. You don't get your problem solved unless
everybody else's problems are solved.
Given the common programs that I have mentioned at the
bottom of that chart, it is clear that some actions, no matter
what the final alternative, will be implemented, that is, if
they are common to all of them. Certain actions must be taken
to improve ecosystem health, water quality, system integrity,
and water use efficiency. That is the basis for the concept of
early implementation.
What we have found with our extensive outreach to the
public and to stakeholders is that they don't want to wait ten
year for more plans to be prepared. They want to see a long-
term solution, but they want us to start fixing the problem
now, and not put it off until we have dotted every I and
crossed every T.
We have the ability because of the common program to
identify actions that allow us to begin reinvestment in the
system, to identify actions which will have a beneficial
impact, and/or will not prejudice the long-term outcome.
It is important that we identify actions that we can
actually start resolving some of the existing conflict in the
system. If I could direct your attention to page 18 and the
three charts that follow that, I will attempt to describe the
basic process that we are utilizing to identify projects and
begin the early implementation.
A major concept in this restoration-coordination activity,
as we refer to it, is to actually identify the priority
projects and programs that can achieve a reduction in conflict
of the system and contribute to the long-term.
We are attempting to set up what could be called a funding
matrix so that we can make the most efficient use of existing
moneys that are available as well as new appropriations.
We are doing this currently primarily looking at something
called category three, a funding mechanism that came out of the
accord. Monies have been made available in Prop 204.
As we set up the different priorities of what needs to be
done, diversions that may need to be screened, certain types of
habitat that may need to be restored, for current conflict-
types of issues, such as anticipated spring run salmon is a
problem. We are dealing with Delta smelt in the Delta that is a
problem, and then we look at integrating other Prop 204 funds
that may be able to make the project bigger or more efficient,
and looking at other Federal funds.
It is our desire to integrate the State and Federal
decisions to come up with better, more efficient programs that
address the problems in the system.
On chart two, there is a very quick shorthand of the
decisionmaking structure that we have put in place. As you know
in identifying the amounts of money that may be necessary in
fiscal year '98, we can identify them by categories, not by
project. It is our firm belief to maintain allegiance to the
stakeholders that have been involved and the public, that we
must go through a methodical process of picking the best
projects.
We have identified categories of activities. We have done
that in a very open process. There are four basic steps for us
to come up with the individual projects, identify the
priorities, develop actions which address those priorities,
establish a request for proposals so we get the best projects
in, and finally, recommend the projects.
Since we are dealing with potential multiple funding
sources, projects that we would want to use Prop 204 funds for,
we would recommend to the Secretary of Resources for the State
of California, and likewise, if the Federal appropriation goes
through, we would submit those to the Secretary of Interior for
final determination.
We are utilizing an ecosystem roundtable which has been
established as a Subcommittee of the Bay-Delta Advisory Council
to look at these near-term implementation issues and help
develop criteria and priorities by which we will select
specific projects. The Bay-Delta Advisory Council will also
review this as part of its task of looking to the long-term
program.
We have attempted to set up a project review process that
maximizes public input and gives us the greatest probability of
getting the best projects to address the issues that we have
identified.
The third chart--I really just put this in here to give you
an indication of the kind of timeframe that we are on. To make
a long story short, we have set up for three separate funding
cycles between now and the end of Federal fiscal year '98. We
are on path now to identify specific projects to begin
receiving funding in August of this year. Obviously, those
funding projects will be focused primarily on Prop 204, but we
can immediately identify additional projects for funding in the
February to March timeframe, and then a third funding cycle for
August-September of next year.
We have set up a process to get maximum input in terms of
the kinds of projects that can address the problems that we
have seen in the system.
We have attempted to identify the kinds of activities, and
that is categorized on page 23. In general, they follow the
issues of habitat acquisition and restoration, including
conservation easements, fish screening projects, monitoring to
make sure that these projects are effective in meeting the
objectives of the program.
We are establishing indicators that will be used as a
yardstick to make sure that we are making progress on the
program. We are also looking at water quality measures,
including watershed management. We are looking at integrating
habitat into levee stabilization programs and you will also
notice in our proposed activities conservation and reclamation
activities.
I see I am about out of time. If I could indulge you for
two more minutes, please?
Mr. Doolittle. Certainly. Go ahead and finish your
statement.
Mr. Snow. I guess at this point, instead of going through
the more detailed list of the kinds of projects, what I would
like to do is put the emphasis on our outreach and creative
solution approach to this.
We don't pretend that we know all of the best solutions to
these problems. We do know what the problems are. We do know
that we have problems with fish when it comes to diversions,
and we need to screen them.
We want to solicit creative proposals from people so that
we have on the table in front of us the best thinking of
everybody in the State of California. It is a collaborative
effort. We need to work with the local landowners and local
conservancies to make sure that we are designing the best
approaches to these problems.
We cannot pretend that we know in Washington or in
Sacramento the best thing that works on Butte Creek. We need to
work with the local folks to understand how these things can be
accomplished.
This is part of a long path. It took us 150 years to get
the system to the condition it is in today. There is no one
fix. We have to have a variety of actions and a significant
period of time in order to recover the system.
We have to actually test our approach to large-scale
ecosystem restoration. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been
implemented. We need to move cautiously but deliberately.
Finally, I guess I would say that we cannot fail, as I
started out. The risk of failure is too great. Part of this
issue of not failing is clearly a strong Federal commitment,
not only a policy commitment to make this happen but also a
financial commitment to make sure we can proceed with the
projects that are necessary.
The less that we invest today, the more there will be
conflict like arose yesterday with respect to CVPIA, and the
longer it will take. We often think that we can save a penny
today, and that will be a penny saved, and that is not the case
when it comes to health of this water system.
We need to make the investments today so that we can reduce
the conflict for tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Lester Snow may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN R. GARAMENDI, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. I want to
thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for inviting me
this morning to discuss our process and progress in developing
the comprehensive long-term restoration of the California Bay-
Delta ecosystem.
I am pleased, in fact delighted, that my colleagues from
the Environmental Protection Agency and from the State of
California are here with me. Our joint participation
demonstrates mutual concern, shared cooperation, and long-term
commitment to meeting the challenges of protecting our
resources.
I would like to depart a little from my prepared testimony
and deal with the issue you raised in your opening statement,
Mr. Chairman. The April water allocation which is just
completed is the most recent example of the importance of the
Bay-Delta program that we are here discussing today.
This has been an extraordinary water year, the seventh such
extraordinary year in the last eight. We cannot fix the
weather, but we can surely fix the water system.
The Bay-Delta program is the fix to the water system, and
it is imperative that we undertake the projects identified in
the Bay-Delta program. This is the only way that we can all
work together in a coordinated fashion. This is the only way to
protect fish and wildlife. This is the only way to protect
agriculture and urban water users. This is the only way to
avoid another fight next April over the allocations.
The CALFED program itself comes from the 1994 December when
Federal agencies, State agencies, representatives of
agriculture, urban, and environmental organizations signed what
is known as the Bay-Delta Accord.
That accord described new ways to meet the requirements of
laws, the Endangered Species Act, the Central Valley
Improvement Act, the Clean Water Act, as well as certain State
laws.
We are working together in a comprehensive long-term
strategy to restore the health of the Delta and the Bay. You
have heard the goals from Mr. Lester Snow, and I will not
repeat them here, but in order for us to develop the accord and
carry out the long-term Bay-Delta program, the Federal and
State agencies combined forces in what we call CALFED.
Four Federal agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Reclamation, EPA, and the National Marine Fishers
began the effort together with the State of California.
We have added or are about to add six additional Federal
agencies, USGS, the Bureau of Land Management, National
Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Forest Service, Western
Area Power Administration, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
These additional agencies provide a vast array of
experience and programs critical to our long-term restoration
efforts. Only through broad integration of policies and
programs as well as new and creative ways of approaching
problems can we realize the goals carried out or laid out in
the Bay-Delta program. This year's tragic flooding is a prime
example.
In the past several months, State and Federal agencies have
been responding to the January floods that wreaked havoc
throughout much of the Central Valley and the Bay-Delta's many
tributaries. The Army Corps of Engineers in collaboration with
CALFED and other Federal and State agencies has undertaken
major efforts to repair flood protection facilities throughout
the system.
With the organization of CALFED, we have a unique
opportunity to implement the restoration goals that are part of
the Bay-Delta program, as well as the Administration's
complementary Federal flood plain management strategies.
Reducing flood damages and threats to life and property
through cost effective and where appropriate, nonstructural
alternatives, can also restore the natural values inherent in
the flood plain and adjacent lands as well as provide for water
quality, quantity, and ecosystem benefits envisioned in the
Bay-Delta program.
A moment to speak about the funding. An overwhelming
endorsement from California voters for Proposition 204 plus the
bipartisan support here in Congress that resulted in the
passage of authorizing legislation last fall and the
unprecedented collaboration among historically feuding water
interests in California, we have an incredible opportunity
today to use the Bay-Delta funding provided for in the
President's budget as a down payment on this major effort to
restore the environment as well as to provide the necessary
water and flood protection.
The program we are undertaking is one of the most
significant restoration programs ever undertaken in the world,
and its implications go well beyond California.
The committee has recognized the importance of the Central
Valley to the health of California's economy and its diverse
natural resource base. The CALFED program is an innovative and
unique approach to resolving the complex resource issues that
have burdened the State for decades.
It is imperative that we have the funding from the Federal
level. We ask that you and this committee give us your full
assistance to achieving the goals of the CALFED program. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of John Garamendi may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Secretary Wheeler, we are pleased
to welcome you here. You are recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DOUGLAS P. WHEELER, SECRETARY FOR
RESOURCES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared
statement that I will submit for the record and attempt very
briefly to summarize my remarks which are directed at the
State's participation in CALFED.
In addition to my responsibilities as Secretary for
Resources, I am also Chairman of the governor's Water Policy
Council, and, I am pleased to say, co-chair of CALFED with my
colleague to the left, Bob Perciasepe.
The State's involvement with CALFED really began just five
years ago this month, with the announcement of the governor's
water policy framework, in which he identified a strategy to
meet all of California's water needs for the coming decades.
At that time and at several occasions since then, the
governor has said that until we solve the issues of the Bay-
Delta, both the water supply issues and the environmental
issues, we will not be able to develop a comprehensive water
supply for the State which assures growing supply as California
continues to flourish.
In April of '92, he made that statement. In June of '94, he
came to the conclusion that we could not achieve a
comprehensive solution in the Bay-Delta or elsewhere unless
first the State got its act together by coordinating a
multiplicity of agencies and different authorities. Then having
done that through the Water Policy Council, we challenged our
colleagues in the Federal Government who exercise a variety of
jurisdictions in the Bay-Delta to similarly come together.
So we have first the Water Policy Council at the State
level. We had next the organization of the Federal Ecosystem
Directorate, FED, and then as a result of a framework agreement
in June of '94, the emergence of CALFED, the coalition of
interests which for the first time in California's history, and
I believe in the country's history, brought together all the
resource agencies and all of the interested parties to work
together on a solution that is truly comprehensive.
That led to the December, 1994, Bay-Delta Accord, which
used the period of three years allotted by the ``no surprises''
policy of the Clinton Administration to find the ultimate final
solution for the Bay-Delta, both in terms of ecosystem
restoration and in terms of water supply.
As you have heard from Lester Snow, we are well on our way
toward this Delta fix. We are now in the second phase, in fact,
of a three-phase program which has remained the highest
priority for Governor Wilson in the achievement of his overall
water policy framework.
The program and the concept received a strong vote of
endorsement first from the legislature of California with the
passage of S.B. 900, and then ultimately, as you have also just
heard, from the voters of California, who by a margin of 63
percent in November elected to commit $995 million to a variety
of different programs, five in all, for assuring a clean, safe,
reliable water supply for California. Three of those five
elements are directly attributable to the work of the Bay-Delta
program and to the solutions of Bay-Delta issues. In
furtherance of the initiative approved by the voters in
November, the governor's budget for '96-'97, and his proposed
budget for '97-'98 include commitment of $280 million all told
in implementation of programs authorized by Proposition 204.
This is a landmark for the State of California and more
than demonstrable of the State's commitment to this
partnership. We are very pleased, therefore, that the Congress
elected to authorize in the fall of last year a Federal match
to that State effort and are here to urge your approval of the
first year's increment of that Federal funding in the amount of
$143 million.
The governor wrote to the House appropriations committee on
the last day of March, just a couple of weeks ago, to say that
for the State of California, there is no higher priority in the
Federal budget than this match of the State's effort with
respect to the CALFED Bay-Delta program, and that the State's
expenditure in support of this program can only succeed if
there is a commensurate resolve and effort on the part of the
Federal Government.
Let me conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, on this occasion
by quoting from the governor, and he wrote in that letter of
March 31, ``This $140 million appropriation is my highest
priority for the energy and water development appropriations
bill.''
We have submitted a copy of that letter to you for the
record, and I am pleased to have been able to underscore the
governor's commitment and the State's commitment to being a
full partner in this very innovative solution to Bay-Delta
issues. Our partnership with the Federal Government represents
real opportunity to demonstrate to the world in fact that
California has once again led the way in devising innovative
means in which to meet its resource and its economic
objectives.
[Statement of Douglas P. Wheeler may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Perciasepe, we are pleased to
have you here, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for
me to be here. I, too, like my colleague, Secretary Wheeler, am
wearing two hats today, first as an administrator of EPA but
also as the co-chair with Secretary Wheeler of the CALFED
process, so in that regard, it is an honor to be here and be
invited to testify.
Before I say something about the accord and add just a few
more pieces to what you have already heard, I also want to make
clear how important we view and recognize the economic and
ecological significance of the water systems in California. The
economy of the State of California is important to the entire
economy of the United States, and the ecological resources and
natural resources that we are working with here and that are
involved with are also of national significance.
I want to talk a little bit about what we have achieved
under the accord and a little bit about the funding and what we
hope to be able to do.
First, the accord accomplishes a number of things that have
been mentioned already. It defines a process to adopt water
quality standards. It defined a process to coordinate water
project management. It created a program to improve aquatic
habitat. It established a long-term process which Lester has
reviewed, and I think I agree with Secretary Wheeler that it
provide a framework and an atmosphere and a time for us to
achieve those things by having that period of certainty.
The water quality standards were ultimately adopted by the
State water resources control board in May of '95 and approved
by EPA in September of '95. This is something that both the
State of California and the Federal Government had been trying
to achieve for quite some time, and we are all very proud that
we were able to do that.
We have set up a process to coordinate reviews of some of
the achievements of the accord to date, a process to coordinate
project management between the State and Federal Government. We
have developed an atmosphere of more confidence in the
financial markets in the State of California, in people like
Standard and Poor's writing that the accord represents a major
step in alleviating many of the credit concerns that were
evolving from a municipal bond standpoint. Richard Rosenberg
from the BankAmerica Corp saying that the accord is a critical
first step toward a new era of water management in the State.
These are all confidence-building and important statements
in terms of the atmosphere and the process that we are trying
to put forward.
I think more importantly and probably significant is the
involvement of all the different stakeholders. Mr. Chairman,
you mentioned in your opening remarks the agricultural
concerns, the urban and industrial needs, the ecological needs,
and getting everybody to work together on those issues have
been provided for in this process.
The Federal funding request for fiscal '98 is really part
of this larger process that Lester reviewed, and you have the
information in front of you which I won't detail here in my
comments about how we are anticipating these funds to be spent.
I would like to make a couple of points that we have to
have a continuing transition into the long-term plan that we
are all working on, and part of what we are trying to do with
our five-year funding plan here at fiscal '98, and the CALFED
proposal, is to continue building that confidence by doing no-
regret projects, projects and programs that are components of
all the different alternatives that are common to all of the
alternatives and cover many of the areas that we are concerned
about, not just ecological restoration but also water quality,
levee vulnerability and the water supply. Some of those
projects are laid out in front of you.
We are also working on a cost-share agreement which we plan
to have in place before September so that the Federal funds and
the State funds under Prop 204 can be spent in a cooperative
way under an agreement that both of us have to do, because
statements both in the Federal law authorizing Federal funds
and the State law require a cost-share agreement.
We also have a new way of doing business in how we are
going to be working on these projects. You have me from the
Environmental Protection Agency here talking to you today about
projects that are going to be done perhaps by the Army Corps of
Engineers, or maybe by Secretary Wheeler's agency, or the
Department of Interior--probably not by EPA--advocating this
whole issue of projects that we are all working on together,
and how these funds are going to work together in tandem, and
how we are going to make those decisions.
I will conclude, simply because much has already been said,
by saying that the Bay-Delta process should be supported for a
number of reasons. First, it is built on a core of partnership
with the State, and I think, as a former State official, one of
the most important things in this process is that we are
working on this together with the State.
Second, the coordination amongst the Federal agencies,
again, as Secretary Wheeler mentioned in his statements, we
have really worked very hard to keep the agencies working
together on this, and this provides a really good opportunity
for us to do it.
Third is the fact that all the stakeholders are involved
with this, and I think Lester may have used the term nobody
gets out alive. I would prefer to say we are all going to be
fed really well, and that the idea here is really that the
house has to be built with all the struts strong and that is
what we are trying to do, and that is what the process is
designed to do.
I will stop here, Mr. Chairman, and I will answer any
questions.
[Statement of Robert Perciasepe may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much. It is hard to know
where to begin, but Mr. Garamendi, what is the status of this
water allocation?
Mr. Garamendi. The water allocations were made late
yesterday. The announcements went out late yesterday afternoon.
They are much the same; in fact, they are the same as was
envisioned by the operation--CALFED operating group--last
Friday. There was a modification made, a statement made as to
the policy surrounding the B-2 water and how it can and under
what circumstances it would be used in the Delta, also a policy
statement made with regard to the no-net-loss provisions of the
accord which will be in operation this year. That having been
done, the policy--the allocation was made yesterday.
It is, as I said in my opening statement, this is a symptom
of the larger problem, and we will be plagued with April
allocation problems every year in the future as we have been in
the last several years in the past because the system is
broken. It is the Bay-Delta program that allows us and gives us
the framework and the resources, the guidelines and the
mechanism to fix the system.
It is simply imperative, we cannot survive long in
California without the Bay-Delta program.
Mr. Doolittle. I think we all agree the system clearly is
broken. Hopefully, this process will lead to its satisfactory
repair and answers. Are there outstanding issues still
unresolved concerning the water allocation?
I thought I read something in your press release that there
are going to be further refinements.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes. The work done by the operating, the ops
group, last Friday spoke to the first half of the process. The
second half was unresolved last Friday, and that second half is
whether the specific criteria and mechanisms to be used in the
makeup pumping that will occur in the fall. That has yet to be
determined.
We do have an extensive box of tools available to us to
assist in the makeup pumping in the fall. We expect that all of
those tools will be used. Some of them are cited in the CVPIA
legislation, others have been suggested by water users
throughout the State, and we will be using all available tools
as appropriate and as needed to complete the makeup pumping in
the fall.
We have about a two to three-week period ahead of us in
which these issues will be discussed and resolved and my
statement speaks to that period of time.
Mr. Doolittle. So you expect that at least within three
weeks, these allocation issues would be resolved?
Mr. Garamendi. That is correct. That is the intention, and
the word I had last night, discussions with the people that
will be doing the work is that they expect to be able to
resolve the remaining issues which are principally around the
issue of--which are around the issue of the makeup.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you for your efforts so far.
Mr. Snow, is it important to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
that the appropriate agencies determine the accounting of the
800,000 acre-feet of yield for the CVP rather than Fish and
Wildlife?
Mr. Snow. The short answer to that question would be yes,
but we do need to understand how we are going to deal with what
I would call environmental flows.
We certainly feel as we compare our ecosystem component of
the long-term plan, that should be addressed in the magnitude
and timing with certain kinds of flows to provide ecosystem
benefit.
Obviously, that is what was intended with the 800,000 acre-
feet, so at some point in our process, we need to better
understand the prescription for the 800,000 acre-feet to make
sure it is integrated with the way we look at the long-term
needs of the ecosystem.
Mr. Doolittle. And how close are we, in your opinion, to
reaching a long-term agreement on how that water will be
counted?
Mr. Snow. I cannot answer that. I am not involved in
dealing with the CVPIA and the actual prescription. I can
respond that we are quite close in terms of the CALFED program
understanding a lot of the principles related to when you need
ecosystem water for the fish restoration plan or other types of
issues, so we are trying to work closely to integrate those,
but I am not familiar with the schedule for making the
determination of the 800,000.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me ask our Deputy Interior Secretary.
Mr. Garamendi, how would you answer that?
Mr. Garamendi. I am trying desperately to recall what I
told you a week and a half ago so as to honor the commitment I
made when I raised my hand as to telling you the whole truth.
As I recall, it is the end of this--it is in May. It is the
end of May. I believe that was my testimony a week and a half
ago, and I believe it is the end of May that we expect that to
be completed.
Mr. Doolittle. I know my time is up here, but Mr. Wheeler,
are you in accord with this process, the 800,000 acre-feet, or
is it your understanding, too, that representatives state that
we will have closure of this by the end of May?
Mr. Wheeler. We are so assured, Mr. Chairman. This is not a
matter of direct interest of the State or a concern. I should
say it is of interest to the State but not of direct
responsibility, and we share the view of the CALFED project
that we have to take into account the availability of this
water as part of a larger plan, which plan is very much a
concern of the State.
Mr. Doolittle. If you don't know what this is, it is going
to be difficult, isn't it, to proceed ahead?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely, and I think that goes to the point
of how much additional water and for what purpose will be
required of the CALFED process. This is a building block
situation.
We are trying to integrate. One of the unique aspects of
CALFED is the fact that we are trying to integrate a number of
disparate statutory authorities and requirements, State,
Federal, and local, into a comprehensive plan, and the
comprehensive plan that CALFED is supposed to prepare, but you
are absolutely correct that you can't do that unless you know
what the component parts are.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, actually
for setting these hearings and for the attendance of everybody
involved with the CALFED process.
It is a remarkable process. I want to extend my complete
endorsement of your endeavor and I want to reiterate how easy
it was last year to promote the funding or at least the
authorization for the spending of a portion of which you were
seeking to get appropriated.
It was very easy simply because it had broad-based support
in California, and I look forward to continuing that as well.
Mr. Snow, I wish to get an estimate from you or at least a
breakdown of the current $143 million request. I will applaud
the Administration for coming up to the plate for the full
amount. We, however, have our task at hand to make sure that
the appropriators indeed appropriate that much this year.
So if you could, please, give me the breakdown, a general
breakdown, of where that money will go and also which agencies
it will be spent through. Is that a problem in making sure that
all CALFED agencies were affected the same way?
Mr. Snow. In the briefing book, it provided our current
estimate on page 23 to go through both our--what we have done
is given a total estimate of what we can accomplish in fiscal
year '98 for the total program. That adds up to $260 million
and covers all four problem areas.
Then in turn, we have taken each of the areas, such as
ecosystem quality, and broken it down into pieces such as
habitat acquisition and restoration, fish screening and
passage, and then in each of those cases, further broken it
down.
These end up being our target categories. For example, $47
million of acquisition of key properties and habitat
restoration in partnership with others for fish and wildlife
purposes, and we have indicated in there just looking at
existing programs that funding could be used by USDA in concert
not only with their Natural Resource Conservation Service
Activities, the Fish and Wildlife Service, but other entities.
We have not made a determination at this point exactly how
those moneys should flow, and the reason for that is while we
have targeted areas and types of habitat, we have not selected
projects, and that comes through this ecosystem roundtable
process that I have described.
So as we get an inventory of projects ready to go, each one
may have a different funding combination and a different lead
agency. We are looking to accomplish the kind of maximum
ecosystem benefit for the least dollars by looking at these
different combinations of projects.
So this is our current working level of detail, these kinds
of categories, and as we proceed with our public process
through the ecosystem roundtable and the Bay-Delta Advisory
Council, we will start filling in with specific projects.
The first projects will be funded under Prop 204, because
we intend to do that in this Federal fiscal year, August of
this year, to begin allocating the moneys.
Mr. Radanovich. So if I can assume the total of page 23 is
not the total, but rather it goes on to include pages 24 and
25?
Mr. Snow. Yes, I am sorry. It is on page 26 that has the
totals. It shows $143 million as a potential Federal funding,
and $260 million as the total.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have a
statement and a letter I would like to submit for the record.
Mr. Doolittle. That will be accepted, without objection.
[Statement of Hon. George Radanovich may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Also, Mr. Snow, how
much is the programmatic EIS statement on the three long-term
alternatives expected to cost, how will it be funded, and is
late 1998 a realistic timeframe to expect completion of this
EIS?
Mr. Snow. Let me start with the last question, realistic
time line.
I think if you talk to people that are familiar with
projects such as this, they would say no, that it cannot be
done in that period of time. However, we have established that
deadline, and we intend to stick to it.
An important part of this whole effort is keeping everybody
engaged, keeping the momentum, and I believe if we keep the
stakeholder community engaged and the diversity of the State
and the Federal agencies that we can meet our targets.
These kinds of processes, if you slow down every time there
is an issue, you can turn it into a ten-year planning process.
That is not going to serve the resource system well if we do
that, so we intend to stick to that deadline.
In terms of the funding, as a result of the Bay-Delta
Accord, there was a specific agreement developed between the
State and Federal agencies to prepare a long-term plan. That
agreement that has been executed between the State and Federal
agencies provides for 50-50 cost share of developing the long-
term strategy, preparing environmental documentation, and
establishes in that agreement a total cost of $20 million to be
split evenly and provides for modifications as necessary as we
proceed and covers a four-year period of time. That is what we
are operating under currently.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like
another couple minutes because I have run out. I do have some
more questions.
I know this is a hard question to ask, but Mr. Perciasepe,
is that how you say it?
Mr. Perciasepe. That is fine.
Mr. Radanovich. Would there be any difficulty in extending
the existing three-year program to four if necessary until a
long-term management plan is determined, if it is determined
that it will have to go beyond 1998, and if so, can you give me
an idea of how long we might expect it to go if you don't reach
that 1998 deadline?
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you. The existing accord which was
signed in December of '94 was a three-year horizon which would
in theory then have it expiring in December of this year.
We are all in agreement that this needs to be extended for
some period of time. We are working with all the stakeholders,
with the State and the other Federal agencies to frame how that
will be extended.
I think it is our feeling and our desire to extend the
accord for the appropriate period of time to allow that work to
be completed, and we think it has worked well within the
framework for all the work that we have been doing.
So the answer in simple terms is yes, we think it should be
extended, and yes, we are working on it to get it long before
the deadline or the expiration.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Deputy Secretary,
thank you for being here. As you well know, I have had a long-
term desire for obtaining some legislative changes in the
CVPIA, so to follow up on the Chairman's question, to what
extent will the prescription be that the 800,000 acre-foot will
require legislation in your opinion?
Mr. Garamendi. I don't think any legislation is required
with regard to the CVPIA. What is required is that we move
beyond the CVPIA and get all of the water system in California
into a repair process. The CALFED Bay-Delta puts us there where
we can achieve the fixes, the kind of solutions necessary.
As to the CVPIA, we do not believe legislation is required,
and certainly, we spoke to that extensively last year.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Secretary. One more
question, if I may. Will the department present water contracts
as a draft new contract beginning with contract negotiations on
those water contracts that expire later this year and then
early in 1998?
Mr. Garamendi. There are two issues that are outstanding
with regard to the water contracts. The first is the issue of
the Windstar impact on those contracts and whether the language
needs to be changed. The solicitor for the Department of
Interior, Mr. John Leshy, has determined that the current
language in many of the contracts opens the Federal Government
up to significant financial liability, and we are now in the
process of discussing with the contractors different language
that may resolve that problem. We hope for a speedy resolution
of that, and if that is the case, we would hope to have that
resolved in the next few months, perhaps sooner.
The second has to do with renewal of contracts. The
contracts that are up for renewal will be dealt with as they
come up. Until the EIS is completed, those renewals will be
additional short-term extensions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Pombo is recognized.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Snow, in going
through the briefing packet that you provided, I notice that
there are a number of land acquisition portions of that, and
that a lot of that money is contingent on land acquisitions.
Do you intend on proceeding with that willing buyer-willing
seller arrangement only?
Mr. Snow. Yes, exclusively willing buyer-willing seller,
and if I could add, in as many places as possible, we would
like to work with a local entity of some sort, be it a
conservancy or group of landowners that we try to work through.
A lot of the historic problems have been associated with
land acquisition for ecosystem purposes, and I think we know
too well the good intentions of restoring wetlands only to
create mosquito problems for the neighbors, and we have to go
through those.
If we do not commit to doing that, we are not going to have
a lot of willing sellers, so we have to make a strong
commitment to working with landowners and do it exclusively on
a willing-seller basis.
Mr. Pombo. So it will be exclusively on the willing-seller
basis. Is that part of the authorizing document or is that just
a commitment on your part?
Mr. Snow. For what we are calling the early implementation
program or the accelerated implementation, it is a policy
statement. Basically, that is how we are going to proceed with
this early implementation program.
Mr. Pombo. Have you identified, and I know you have, but
have you identified potential sites for acquisition and if so,
how are you dealing with those property owners at this time?
You brought them into the process and discussed with them
that their properties are slated for potential acquisition?
Mr. Snow. At this point, all we have identified is broad
areas such as the Delta or Suisun Marsh or North Bay or San
Pablo Bay. We have not targeted specific properties at this
point.
Mr. Pombo. I notice that in one part, it specifically
points out the Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge, the expansion of
that existing refuge. In order to do that, you are expanding
onto private property, and I have had constituents contact me
with concern as to which direction and who is involved.
Mr. Snow. We are aware of the conflicts and the
controversies associated with Stone Lakes. We highlighted that
area because that particular category that we proposed would
deal with meander belts as well as the potential condition to
existing refuges in the San Joaquin, Delta, and the Sacramento
system.
We have not targeted specific acquisitions in those areas,
but I think that the point that you are making is certainly a
critical issue to us, and that is that we have to work with the
local parties that would be affected by such land acquisitions
in order to have a long-term successful program.
We do not view this as run in quickly and secure 100 acres
and we are through. We have to have a long-term sustained
relationship with the local property owners in order to
maintain the kind of program that we are talking about.
Mr. Pombo. At what point will the property owners be
contacted and told that they are on the map, so to speak?
Mr. Snow. Well, there are two separate tracks that we are
on to do that.
One is that we have already started holding regional
meetings to discuss our long-term program, ecosystem
restoration activities. The point of that is to talk about
where we may be going in the long run, what could be local
impacts, and to get better ideas.
Separately, though, we will be holding local meetings to
talk about these near-term activities, to have actual workshops
before we solicit proposals from people to try to get
additional input and let people know what is going on in their
area.
The other piece that fits that is that we are trying to
have meetings with local entities in certain areas, such as in
the Delta with the Delta Protection Commission, to get on their
agenda and describe these activities and to work with some of
the local landowners.
Also, I guess I would stress that this is only a partial
response to the issue that you raised. That is why we have
established something called the ecosystem roundtable. This
actually has members of people from different parts of the
State with different interests, so they are bringing these
concerns to the table as we even formulate our strategy for
implementing these ecosystem restoration opportunities.
It is probably not a perfect system that we have set up,
but we think we have enough workshops and contact, enough
organizations, that we are providing the opportunity to make
sure we run these issues to the ground and that we do not make
a mistake and get landowners upset at the front end of a
program when we are depending on their cooperation for the long
run.
Mr. Pombo. Unfortunately, and I appreciate your trying to
set up the roundtables and do as much of that as you can, but
unfortunately, the property owners that are involved may be
more likely to reach out if they went to a farm bureau meeting
than an ecosystem restoration roundtable, and so you can have a
lot of meetings like that.
The Health Protection Agency is made up of a very diverse
group, but the property owners that are involved for the most
part, you can go all the way through your entire process and
they can be oblivious that they are even being considered.
I would like to strongly encourage you that early on in the
process, when you are beginning to develop areas and maps as to
where you are going to go that you begin to contact the
property owners so that they know before they pick up their
paper in the morning and see a map that they are potentially
going to be on a map.
I think that would avoid a great deal of the problems in
the long-term.
Mr. Chairman, I understand my time has expired. I did have
a few more questions. Are we going to have another round of
questions?
Mr. Doolittle. Why don't you just go ahead and ask your
questions?
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. What restrictions--if you come up
with a plan and you can use South San Joaquin, you can use the
Stone Lakes area, both of which are identified as areas of
potential acquisition, and you come up with a plan that the
experts agree is the best thing to do, but you have unwilling
sellers in those particular cases.
What kind of restrictions would you place upon those
sellers who happen to be within an area that is slated for
acquisition on their activities, normal farming activities?
What kind of restrictions would you place on them if they are
unwilling sellers?
Mr. Snow. Well, I guess there are a couple ways to try to
answer that, but I think that perhaps the most germane way to
answer it is that a proposal that would come in for this early
implementation--that is what I am talking about right now
exclusively, that had these types of local conflicts going on
would be very unlikely to receive funding through our process,
because it is incomplete as far as we are concerned.
We are looking for projects that are ready to go and don't
have these kinds of conflicts and controversies going on with
that. So we are going to expect programs and projects to come
in where people are already working with the local landowners
to resolve those problems.
So if we have a proposal for land acquisition where it is a
patchwork quilt because they are saying they are going to have
to condemn some of the parcels, it doesn't meet our criteria
for this early funding effort.
Mr. Pombo. But see, that is exactly the problem right
there. It is just the way you described that, because it will
be on the map as slated for acquisition, and there may be a
problem with a few owners that are unwilling sellers or however
it is, that there may be a problem with that particular
acquisition.
You won't slate money to purchase that because there is a
problem with it, but it will remain on the map as slated for
acquisition for habitat restoration or wetlands or whatever the
overriding public use of that may be, and for ten years, twenty
years, however long this process continues, every time a county
planner picks up a map, they will see that is slated for
acquisition by this process. Every time a potential buyer of
that property for farming use comes along and begins to do his
research into a particular piece of property, he will find out
that that property is slated for future acquisition by Fish and
Wildlife, Army Corps, or whoever it may be, and that tends to
have the impact on the long-term viability of that particular
parcel on the value of that parcel and will be seen over a
number of years as--they potentially will become willing
sellers because the government is the only buyer, and there is
no one else out there.
I am concerned about establishing this process that we are
going through and not having some way of protecting those
property owners who may not be willing sellers in this process.
I understand there are willing sellers. I have talked with a
number of them, but there are a number of them that have
contacted me that are not willing sellers, and I am very
concerned about where this takes us.
Mr. Snow. You raise a good point that I don't have an
equally good answer for. It is actually very germane when we
look at the bypass or overflow areas on the San Joaquin where
we can talk about dealing with a flood management issue at the
same time we are talking about ecosystem restoration
activities.
If you have 100 landowners lined up that think it is a good
idea to have a flood easement and conservation easement, but
there is one in the middle that does not, do you build a levee
around them?
That is a fundamental question that is in our future, no
question about that, and I don't have a good answer for
resolving those kinds of conflicts. I do know that in the near-
term, to deal with this early implementation, we are going to
steer away from projects that have that kind of--it is called
implicit condemnation aspects to them and move to projects
where we can get something done and get the benefits generated
to reduce the conflict that is out there.
But in the longer run, when we look at, again, an example
of a bypass, agricultural preserve, habitat preserve, that is a
more difficult issue, and we are going to spend a lot of time
working on that.
Mr. Pombo. I appreciate that, and I would really like to
continue working with you on that, because it is a concern of
mine.
Mr. Perciasepe, along the same lines, the acquisition of
these properties, what is the commitment of the Federal
agencies in protecting the property rights of the individuals
who appear on a map slated for acquisition even though--and we
both understand that the way this works is you will sit down
and figure out the best way to do this and come up with a map,
and then you go out and try to purchase the property. That has
a lot of times been when the problems start, but what happens,
what are you going to do and what is the commitment going to be
from the Federal agencies not to put further restrictions on
those individuals who happen to not be willing sellers in this
process?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think first of all, I want to also
reiterate what Lester said. I believe these issues of the
impact of the Federal Government is an important aspect of this
and probably will be handled in a sensitive way identifying
what may or may not need to be done through any project that
comes out of this process, not just ecosystem-type projects,
but also facilities that may have to be built, a more
traditional concept of government working with private property
owners. I think both of those aspects are going to require a
great deal of sensitivity.
There is nothing in this program that changes the existing
regulatory aspects of the different agencies. We have no new
authorities granted to us by these funds or to any of the
participating State or Federal agencies, so the existing,
underlying laws would be the ones that would be enforced.
Mr. Pombo. What concerns me is some of the things the
Federal agencies have done in the past, and what I am searching
for is, I guess, commitment in this entire process, that those
kind of things aren't going to happen in the future, where you
have an unwilling seller who can go through a number of years
and eventually get to the point where the only buyer for their
property is a Federal agency or conservation group, and that is
the only direction they can go, and the property has been
devalued because there is only one buyer, and we end up with a
situation where they are contacting their elected
representative to help them out, and it is way too late in the
process.
I think it is early in the process that we have to put this
out on the table so that these kind of things don't happen.
Mr. Perciasepe. I would agree, and I think we have the
agreement of the Federal agencies that this entire process,
when it comes to the use of private property for any public
purposes, whether it be facilities or easements or whatever,
has to be done in a way that reaches out to the individual
property owners, and I would agree with that.
You have my commitment that we will make sure that that
happens.
Mr. Pombo. And this question, I guess, would probably be
more appropriately geared to Mr. Garamendi. Would the
Administration oppose language that would say that just because
they are on a map it would not put any added restrictions or in
any way reduce the use of that property just because we put
them on a map? Would that be possible?
I know you don't have language in front of you or anything,
but I mean, just that general idea, is that something that you
think the Administration would oppose?
Mr. Garamendi. I think such language would be unnecessary.
In the instance we are discussing, which is the first $143
million allocation, most of which will be spent as Mr. Snow
suggested in what are called early implementation, we will not
be in a position to do something that is not desired by the
landowner.
Now, the land that is likely to be affected or desired or
acquired is land that is in unique status to begin with. It is
along a river. It is a potential wetland or it may already be a
wetland or an area in which--the Stone Lakes area which is
subject to flooding today and there are restrictions having to
do with the flooding that occurs there annually.
I cannot envision specific language or even general
language that would be of use in the context of this particular
appropriation.
Now, as we move into the future with the remaining other
portions of CALFED, there are projects that are flood control
projects. It is clearly envisioned that a flood control project
is one that may very well require condemnation often because
the landowner may desire a friendly condemnation. There are
certain tax advantages to such an activity versus an outright
sale of the land, so I don't think we want to preclude that.
Certainly as you understand so well from your district,
flood control project is a chain and a link missing is not a
project at all, so we want to be very careful how we deal with
that and not preclude that potential which may be beneficial to
the landowner.
Then the third part of this Bay-Delta program is water
enhancements, meaning how do we get new water, additional
water. Those are what I think Mr. Perciasepe said the
traditional water projects, and again, I don't believe it is
wise to preclude both because the landowner may desire a
friendly condemnation, nor do you want--and it may be
impossible to build a reservoir or a pipeline system or a pump
without having that option available to you.
I would suggest that the point you have made is one that is
well understood. You have heard from three of us that we
understand the point you are making, but I think that given the
extent of this project across the vast reach of California,
that language may very well be very, very detrimental to
achieving the goals and not carry out the desire that you are
seeking.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Snow, since this is sort of free money
that you are spending; in a sense, this isn't coming out of
your pocket. What incentives are there for you to get the most
bang for the buck?
Mr. Snow. Having just filed my taxes, I am not convinced
that it is not my money.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Snow. A taxpayer in your district, I might add, and
that is a question that everyone has asked, whether the
stakeholders are going to hear from our elected officials in
California or back here, how do we get the bang for the buck on
this.
You will even notice in this proposed allocation of funds,
that we have included a specific category for monitoring of
ecosystem health. That has to be part of any effort that goes
forward as improving the way that we monitor these projects as
individual projects if in fact they are doing what we said they
are going to do, is the riparian habitat coming back the way
that it said, and are fish responding to it.
In our program, we are developing something that we call
ecosystem indicators, which are basic yardsticks to be used to
see if we are going where we said we are going to go, but then
also perhaps more relevant to these specific funds and the
projects that would enable, we do envision a very specific
monitoring program where we set up baseline conditions and then
monitor as the actions are taken to see if we are getting the
results.
If a fish screen is being put in place, we want to monitor
how that fish screen is working. This is particularly important
were we may in fact be funding innovative approaches to fish
screening, not just a cookie cutter approach that, here is the
mandate for the fish screen, go do it everywhere.
If we are allowing some creative approaches, then we need
to have a monitoring program in place to make determinations
about the least cost and most effective way to screen fish out
of diversions.
I can't follow up with additional information on the broad
ecosystem indicators and our strategy, but the actual
monitoring will be developed to fit the individual projects to
make sure that the projects are being implemented properly.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, you hit upon an area I was
specifically interested in. Maybe Mr. Garamendi or one of the
other gentlemen here will comment about it.
There is one reclamation district that had a proposal to
protect fish. It was not a fish screen. It was some sort of an
acoustic device, much less expensive, I guess many times less
expensive than a fish screen, and according to their experts it
would have saved 80 to 90 percent of the fish, but the Fish and
Wildlife Service has apparently set a standard that requires, I
think it is 98 percent of the fish to be saved. I guess zero
percent are being saved today.
My question to one of you gentlemen is, react, please, to
this situation where there was an innovative, non-fish screen
approach and it was vetoed by one of the Federal agencies.
Mr. Garamendi. Which one did that?
Mr. Doolittle. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, you asked for my reaction, and
my reaction is that that is not the proper answer that was
given by the Fish and Wildlife if you cite the facts totally
and correctly.
We must be creative and innovative, seeking methods that
are new and in some cases untried. We have to use what we are
calling an adaptive management approach, but frankly, the
answers are not known on many of the wildlife issues today, and
we need to try something, test it. If it doesn't work, then
come back and make modifications. Only in that way will we make
progress, and I am a very strong advocate of that, and I would
certainly want to see the Fish and Wildlife Service be using
that adaptive management process.
I know that Mike Spear is an advocate of that. He is our
regional manager on the West Coast, and I would think that we
will see more of that. I would be interested in having the
specific facts with regard to this one. It might prove to be a
useful example for us all.
Mr. Doolittle. I will forward to you the specific facts and
would request that when you review them, that you make a
response to the committee.
I think a lot of good can come out of this if people are
willing to be flexible and reasonable as to how these things
are done, but to demand that--I mean, a fish screen is not
necessarily a perfect answer. It is certainly a very expensive
solution, if it really amounts to much of a solution, and I
guess that is perhaps another question.
Mr. Garamendi. I look forward to getting the specific
information and I will respond to you. I have given you my
general impression based on the information you have given me.
The bottom line is, in order to deal with the Bay-Delta issues,
the water issues of California, we must be creative and that
means trying new things.
Mr. Chairman, I am apologetic, but I have an airplane that
I must leave for.
Mr. Doolittle. I appreciate your staying. We started late.
I would encourage those of you who are able to remain to do so,
but I understand this is a very difficult situation.
I think, Mr. Garamendi, you have answered my questions, and
Mr. Pombo is satisfied, so why don't we ask the rest of you to
remain, and we will excuse the Deputy Secretary to make his
plane.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doolittle. And I think that we are just about concluded
with the questions for the rest of you. I hope at least Mr.
Snow can stick around for the second panel, and as many of the
rest of you as are able.
When you hear the testimony of our final witness on the
second panel, I would be interested in engaging you in a bit of
further conversation. I think when you hear the testimony of
Mr. Payne, you will see what I am driving at here. In fact, I
truly regret that I was not aware of his testimony earlier. I
would have asked the Corps of Engineers to be present for this
to get their input, but it was too late to do that.
Let me ask you this question now, Mr. Snow. In your
interchange with Mr. Pombo, you certainly made it clear that
you are pursing willing buyer-willing seller. I guess the
question I would follow up with is, what conditions are
necessary to foster the climate of a willing buyer-willing
seller?
In other words, it is certainly possible to make the
pronouncement that you are going to do that, but then every
time somebody turns around to do practically anything with land
that is in one of these sensitive areas, you have to have some
governmental agency's permission, and we all know that they
communicate with each other, local, State and Federal. The
State agencies will pick up the phone and call the Federal and
vice versa, hey, we have a situation here, an interest in this,
move slowly with your permit or whatever. I do believe that
that occurs, and you will see in the testimony of Mr. Payne
someone who has been frustrated for years over this.
In fact, the Corps of Engineers is one of your
participating agencies, right, in CALFED, and the real estate
division apparently doesn't communicate with the CALFED aspect
of the operation.
What do you do about this when people become very
frustrated and are deemed to be willing sellers because they
finally don't know what else to do. Essentially, they give up.
Are you sensitive to these problems and what are you going
to be doing to take that into account?
Mr. Snow. Yes, I am, and I am going to do something
different than the Corps did in this case. This will be the
short answer.
I have some general familiarity with the issue that you are
referring to with Mr. Payne's property, and it is a truly
unique situation. I am not sure I have ever run across anything
quite like that, and I will give you one kind of specific
response as to how I think we want to do business, and I
hesitate to do this, because I know that you have on your next
panel someone from the Nature Conservancy.
But I think in fact the Nature Conservancy provides a model
that we want to work with, and that is that is not Federal or
State agency acquisition of property. It is our enabling
organizations such as the Nature Conservancy that has a track
record of working with the local landowners to do this in a
cooperative fashion to acquire property.
I think that is what we want to see happen, is to be able
to see conservancies and other organizations that have at their
roots the local property owners and local interests
participating in those kinds of decisionmaking processes.
Where that doesn't work, then we will need to have a more
traditional property acquisition, but we have to be mindful of
these kinds of issues because of the sustained effort that we
have to maintain. If the reputation is that the land
acquisition that resulted from the CALFED program is going to
cheat you out of the value of your property, then there is not
going to be willing sellers out there, and there are going to
be people back here testifying don't give them any more money.
We have that in mind as we proceed forward with this. We
have to deal fairly, and that is on both sides. I mean, if you
give away too much money, then you have people saying that it
is a gift of public funds, so you have to have a fair and open
approach, and everybody knows what the rules are.
I think that philosophically, that has to be the foundation
of this program, because we are not in this for a flash in the
pan where we are going to buy a couple hundred acres and we are
through and we don't care what people think about is.
We are in this for the long haul. The efforts that we are
talking about you will see referred to in here, 20 to 25 years
of implementation. To be able to sustain that, we have to have
good relationships with the property owners and local
government and local businesses.
Mr. Doolittle. I am very encouraged to hear that response.
I am encouraged that you are in charge of the program, and you
have a great opportunity to actually accomplish something in an
area where so little has been accomplished in the past.
I hope, and as long as you are mindful of the fact that
there are ways to get someone's property short of condemning
it, and that you will work to resist allowing those conditions
to exist, I think it will be a very, very positive thing.
Let me thank all of the members and the ranking members of
our panel for being here. We will have no doubt a few
additional questions to submit to you in writing, and we would
ask for your prompt reply, and we will hold the hearing record
open for that purpose.
With that, we thank you for being here. Those who can stay,
please do, and we will understand if other things must take you
away.
Mr. Snow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. I have something, because of this time
change, that is pressing on me. I am going to declare a recess
for five minutes, and then we will come back for the second
panel.
I will ask our second panel to come forward and remain
standing for the oath for your testimony.
Please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or
affirm under penalty of perjury that the responses given and
the statements made will be the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that each answered in the
affirmative. Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome you here to the
Subcommittee hearing, and I apologize for the inconvenience of
this delay.
The lights there in front of you will indicate when your
five minutes are up. It isn't life or death if you go over it,
but please try to use it as a rough guide, anyway.
Let me introduce the panel. We have Rosemary Kamei,
Director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District; Ms. Leslie
Friedman Johnson, Director of Agency Relations of the
California Regional Office of the Nature Conservancy. We have
Ms. Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO of the Bay Area
Council; Mr. Richard K. Golb, Executive Director of the
Northern California Water Association; and Mr. W. Ashley Payne,
owner of the Ashley Payne Farms.
We appreciate your being here, and we will recognize Ms.
Kamei for her statement.
STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY KAMEI, DIRECTOR, SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT
Ms. Kamei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to
submit the statement on the CALFED Bay-Delta program on behalf
of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, a member of the
California Bay-Delta Water Coalition, and on behalf of the Bay-
Delta Advisory Council.
California's economy is one of the strongest in the world,
and that strength is dependent on sufficient and reliable
supplies of water. The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary supplies
20 million people and supports an $800 billion economy and job
base. The Bay Area is the number one business location in the
United States and second in the world.
Santa Clara County, the Silicon Valley, is the single most
important high-tech center in the United States, being home to
over 4,000 high-tech companies. The Silicon Valley receives
one-third or over $1 billion of the venture capital that is
invested in the United States annually and employs
approximately 230,000 people.
These growing industries as well as our homeowners need a
reliable source of high quality water coupled with an improving
environment to produce the products that fuel the economic
engine and to provide healthy surroundings to raise our
children.
Santa Clara County is home to 1.6 million people, and it
constitutes 25 percent of the Bay Area's total population and
economy. On an average year, half of the water supplied to
Santa Clara County comes from the Bay-Delta region. A reliable
and adequate supply of high quality water and environmental
quality is important to the businesses and residents of the
Silicon Valley.
As a member of the Urban Water Users Community and an
active participant in the CALFED Bay-Delta program, I am
pleased with the progress of the program and the degree to
which the program has promoted an open and consensus-building
process in developing a long-term solution to the problems
facing the Bay-Delta.
The program has a very ambitious schedule, but I think that
it is important for CALFED to continue with the momentum that
it has generated. From the urban perspective, the CALFED
process is on track to increase water supply reliability. This
is absolutely critical to maintaining the quality of life, not
just in my area but throughout the State.
The Bay-Delta Advisory Council, also known as BDAC, is a
federally chartered stakeholder group which provides policy
guidance to CALFED in its development of the long-term Bay-
Delta solution. It is a 32-member council consisting of
representatives from urban, agricultural, environmental,
business, and fishing interests. It is the formal forum for
stakeholders to discuss issues, understand the concerns from
all of the interests that will be affected by the CALFED Bay-
Delta program, and to provide recommendations to CALFED in
developing balanced alternatives for addressing water problems
in the Bay-Delta.
Although the CALFED program requires all parts of the long-
term solution to move forward together, the CALFED agencies and
stakeholder interests have recognized an immediate need to
begin implementation of the ecosystem restoration element.
Because the ecosystem restoration element is designed to serve
as the foundation for all of the other program elements,
immediate restoration action is necessary to achieve the more
long-term water supply reliability and water quality benefits.
The California Bay-Delta Water Coalition, including the
Santa Clara Valley Water District, strongly supports the
Administration's budget request for funding the interim CALFED
ecosystem restoration program. The coalition believes that it
is critical that all parties in this process, Federal, State,
local, and stakeholder interests, contribute financially to
CALFED Bay-Delta.
The project selection and funding prioritization process is
being performed in a manner that fosters cooperative planning
and implementation with all the Federal, State, and local
agencies and the stakeholders. Prioritization is based on a
rigorous evaluation of environment needs, biological benefits,
technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, potential
environmental and third-party impacts, and consistency with
CALFED goals.
I believe that this ecosystem roundtable process is the
most effective method for coordinating overlapping agency
programs and for bringing meaningful involvement and
stakeholder buy-in.
Thank you so much for this opportunity.
[Statement of Rosemary Kamei may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, you are recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, I am sorry, I was just distracted.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE FRIEDMAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF AGENCY
RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL OFFICE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Ms. Johnson. My name is Leslie Friedman Johnson and thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify here today.
I would like to submit for the record a coalition statement
on behalf of the California Bay-Delta Water Coalition. Several
of the panelists here before you are part of that coalition,
and we did prepare a joint statement which we would like to
submit for the record.
Mr. Doolittle. It will be submitted.
Ms. Johnson. In addition to the coalition's statement, I
have submitted a personal statement in which I tried to address
the questions that you asked of me in my invitation letter, so
I would like for that to become part of the record as well.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, it will be.
Ms. Johnson. Again, my name is Leslie Friedman Johnson. I
am director of agency relations for the Nature Conservancy in
California. The Nature Conservancy is a membership
organization. We have over 900,000 members nationwide. We are
in the business of land and biodiversity conservation.
In California, we have been active for more than 20 years
in the Bay-Delta watershed doing ecosystem conservation and
restoration projects, so I think that qualifies us to speak to
some of the issues at hand today.
We do share the CALFED objective of restoring ecosystem
health in the Bay-Delta watershed, and for that reason, we have
been participating in the CALFED process since virtually the
day after the Bay-Delta Accord was signed.
As I said, I have submitted a lot of information for the
record in my written statement. I would like to focus on just a
couple of elements of that statement and perhaps elaborate on
them for our purposes here.
I would like to begin with talking about why we need strong
Federal support at this time. I am using that as a euphemism
for lots of money, why we need that in the process. As my
colleague here just mentioned, ecosystem restoration is the
foundation for the CALFED solution that is being built.
I would like to characterize it a little bit differently
than you have heard it characterized today, maybe a little
background first.
Habitats and species in the valley, in the Bay-Delta
watershed are in decline, have been in decline for a long time.
We are down to a point where we are down to single-digit
percentages of a lot of species and habitat types. It has
gotten to the point where there is virtually no slack left in
the system, to the point where every acre-foot of water, every
acre of land becomes a potential battleground, a potential
flashpoint for controversy.
We believe that we will continue to have controversies
until this situation is fixed, until we restore some of the
slack or the flexibility to the system.
We tend to talk about the CALFED elements, ecosystem
restoration, water supply reliability, water quality, as though
they are discrete, separate elements. I would just like to try
to make the point that we believe they are intricately linked,
and that in fact, restoring the ecosystem is in and of itself
an activity that will help enhance water supply reliability. It
is not a separate action. It is an action to help restore
reliability.
This is something we feel very strongly about. What the
money would be for in the short-term, and I would like to spend
a little bit of time talking about the urgency of the need for
support. Everyone says that we need it, that it is a good
thing, that we should do more of it.
What I would like to really highlight is the urgency. There
are urgent actions that need to be done. There are species that
are on the brink. There are species that continue to be in
decline. If they are allowed to continue to decline, water
supply reliability will be impacted further than it has been
already.
In addition to emergency actions to deal with species at
risk, there is also a lot of research and development,
demonstration projects that need to be done for habitats for
which restoration technology is not well developed. We know a
lot about how to restore some, but virtually nothing about how
to restore others.
We also need to act immediately so as to preserve our
options so that we can do the ecosystem restoration as we learn
more about what needs to be done. By that, I mean we need to
acquire land before it is converted to urban or high investment
uses if we are to bring it back. We also need to have
significant funding in order to encourage projects on the scale
that we need to actually restore ecosystem health. Little
piecemeal projects that deal with single issues or single
species that are not done in a large scale, coordinated way are
not going to get us to a place where we can actually say we
have ecosystem health.
I think that the request, the nature of the
Administration's request this year, that it is for a lump sum.
We support that very strongly. We know that there has been talk
about perhaps dividing it up amongst the agencies. We fear that
that would undermine CALFED's ability to use the funds in a
coordinated fashion. We really think the lump sum is the right
way to go.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions, and again, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
[Statement of Leslie Friedman Johnson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very, very much. Ms. McPeak, you
are recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BAY AREA
COUNCIL
Ms. McPeak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you introduced, I
am here representing the Bay Area Council, a business-sponsored
CEO-led public policy organization established more than 50
years ago to promote the economic vitality and environmental
quality of the nine counties that rim San Francisco Bay.
I also want to share a viewpoint from the perspective of
business throughout California and in addition, I am very
honored to serve on the Bay-Delta Advisory Committee as vice
Chairman.
The Bay Area Council and business leaders throughout
California strongly support the CALFED process and endorse this
Federal investment in the continuation of the process in this
fiscal year. Put quite simply, this is the only hope in
California to reach an accord or sustain the accord reached in
December of '94 and continue to address the challenges of
securing a reliable quality water supply for the economy which
also is dependent upon restoration of the environment in the
Bay-Delta ecosystem.
You most eloquently set forth the importance of the Bay-
Delta process and the challenges we face in order to achieve
success in your opening comments. I couldn't State them any
better.
Let me just say in terms of are we in it for the long haul,
the business leaders that head my organization and those that
have been very involved in California got into this process to
support the Bay-Delta Accord because it was quite clear that
the political paralysis, the gridlock in policy in California,
was seriously threatening the economic recovery and sustained
economic prosperity for California and therefore, also for the
nation.
I am quite personally surprised that we have been able to
get along this many years without a workable solution to assure
a reliable water supply for the State.
We don't have any more time. If we do not proceed with the
CALFED process, we seriously threaten and endanger the economic
engine known as California, the Bay Area, and therefore, the
sustained economic growth of the nation.
You can be very pleased and proud of leadership exerted
here by your committee in this process. It is only because it
is stakeholder-driven, Federal-staked, multi-agency, bipartisan
that we have a chance to succeed.
Economic prosperity and environment quality must go hand in
hand and we know that quite dearly, particularly in the region
that surrounds the Bay-Delta Estuary. What is proposed here for
the Federal appropriation and the investment in CALFED is an
approach to implement as we continue to address the challenges.
I want to also share with you that my members have little
tolerance for wasting time, but also an appreciation for what
it means to have a sustained commitment to seeing a process
through.
The timetable we are working on with the EIS-EIR process is
one that we want to see met. You heard the commitment from
Lester. I can assure you that Chairman Mike Madigan and myself
are also committed to meeting that timetable, because it is
only with that intense, sustained focus do we make any
progress.
I believe that we can all be quite confident because there
is such a sense of urgency in California, and therefore, both
the Federal and State projects that we succeed with the CALFED
process that we will succeed.
I am happy to answer any questions.
[Statement of Sunne Wright McPeak may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Golb, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. GOLB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Golb. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Golb. I am
executive director of the Northern California Water
Association. The NCWA is a nonprofit organization that
represents both public and private water agencies throughout
the Sacramento Valley.
I really appreciate the opportunity to testify here today,
and also appreciate your time commitment despite the
distractions of earlier and your proceeding on with this
hearing. It means a lot to all of us who travelled east from
California to testify.
California's agricultural interests are supportive of the
CALFED process as well as the CALFED ecosystem goal, and the
whole objective of the CALFED plan which is to restore water
supplies for California's cities, businesses, and farms and to
restore the ecosystem for all species and habitat of the
species that depend on it.
We view those two goals as interrelated, and we view them
in such a way that they are not mutually exclusive, but
mutually achievable, and in fact, this is in a similar vein to
support that was echoed earlier for Governor Wilson's 1992
water policy where he advanced the principle that all interests
have to advance at the same time, and that any one interest
shouldn't get ahead of the others.
Our support for the CALFED process is consistent with the
governor's 1992 water policy. Following on that theme, CALFED
adopted a set of six solution principles earlier, and they are
very important because what they do is they guide CALFED as it
attempts to develop a preferred alternative.
Now, several of the principles that CALFED adopted do the
following. First, they ensure that the final solution is
equitable to all interests, also that the preferred alternative
doesn't result in any redirected impacts to other regions or
other interests. Then one of the final principles is that it is
a durable plan that will last, that has shelf life, so it
addresses both California's economic needs and environment
needs.
We believe the success of the CALFED program is imperative
for the success of California's economy and the long-term
health of our environment.
As Sunne indicated, the ecosystem roundtable is a 19-member
subcommittee of the Bay-Delta Advisory Council. The ecosystem
roundtable of which I am a member is a representative work
group comprised of all major interest groups and all major
stakeholders in California.
The mission is to assist CALFED and the Bay-Delta Advisory
Council to come up with recommendations for specific projects
to resolve and identify priority needs throughout the whole
Bay-Delta watershed. Our current goal is to go through this
process and make an initial recommendation, hopefully by
sometime this summer so that we can move forward with some of
the projects that are available and ready to go now.
Our view so far of the ecosystem roundtable is that it is
an accountable and balanced process. There are always reasons
to be skeptical, and there is always great interest when a
group of people get together and attempt to allocate State and
Federal dollars. That interest is healthy. The skepticism, to
an extent, is probably healthy as well, but from our
perspective, so far, it is working well and we view it as a
process that we believe in. There are clearly established
criteria for how projects will be selected, strong measures of
good science for how the priorities will be established, and we
view those steps which Lester Snow identified earlier today as
balanced steps that will lead us to very good projects.
Congressional support for the President's budget request
for $143 million will allow CALFED and the ecosystem roundtable
and the Bay-Delta Advisory Group to begin work on both
immediate projects and long-term restoration projects that will
provide significant water supply reliability benefits for
agricultural needs and urban and municipal needs.
The funding will also ensure that restoration projects that
have a current local fund share as well as current State and
Federal approval can move forward now.
For example, State and Federal agencies have long advocated
that agricultural water suppliers, the San Joaquin River and
the Sacramento River and in the Delta, should screen their
diversions, should place large, mechanical screens around their
diversions to slow the water as it passes the diversion and
prevent juvenile salmon from being trapped at the pumps.
There are a number of agricultural water suppliers that
have accepted the challenge and stepped forward to begin the
process of installing these screens on the diversions. It is a
very lengthy, expensive process.
At this point now, we have a number of agencies that are
ready to proceed and a number of water suppliers, public and
private, that would like to install these diversions and are
willing to do so. These funds that the President has requested
will help CALFED finance those projects.
In conclusion, I guess what I would like to say is that
Federal support for the CALFED process is imperative, and that
means the support of the agencies and the support of Congress.
What we need to make sure that CALFED succeeds is a full
commitment, a commitment of financing and a commitment to
adhere to the accords, the agreements that we have reached in
California such as the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord to make sure that
we have the authorization, the authorities, the necessary
financing and the agreements all together collectively to
finance the initial projects that will lead to the long-term
projects that CALFED is now developing.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing,
and I would be pleased to answer any questions at the
conclusion of Mr. Payne's testimony.
[Statement of Richard K. Golb may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Payne, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF W. ASHLEY PAYNE, OWNER, ASHLEY PAYNE FARMS
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, my name is Ashley Payne. I am a rancher in Yolo
County, California. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today and your Subcommittee, particularly from the
perspective of a landowner who has property in the CALFED
acquisition area.
My involvement with the Federal land acquisition process
has been with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Corps'
effort to acquire the Little Holland tract, an island in the
delta that my brother and I own. While my experience may be
somewhat unique, it does provide some lessons from which the
CALFED land acquisition program can benefit.
Little Holland tract is a 1,630-acre delta island in
southeastern Yolo County, with 450 acre-feet of appropriate
water rights. In 1995, Congress passed legislation directing
the Corps to acquire Little Holland tract, and funds were
appropriated to carry out the acquisition. To date, it appears
that we are still a long way from finalizing acquisition of the
property.
The Corps has appraised the property and offered us
$735,000 for the island. This is far less than the fair market
value of the property. In 1992, a private appraisal valued the
property at $2,500,000. In 1995, Congress made up to $3,300,000
available for the acquisition.
There were several reasons for the low appraisal by the
Corps that have emerged. First, Federal appraisal standards
preclude the use of anything but private-to-private sales when
selecting comparables to determine the fair market value of a
parcel. Federal appraisal guidelines do not permit the use of
transactions that involve a nonprofit or the State of
California, both of which have made significant acquisitions in
the Delta.
Secondly, the Corps does not have a solid understanding of
water rights and their value. During our recent discussion with
the Corps, representatives of the agency acknowledged that the
Corps had not assigned any value whatsoever to the appropriate
water rights associated with the Little Holland Tract.
Senior appropriate water rights similar to those associated
with Little Holland tract have sold recently for $1,500 per
acre-foot. That would place the value of the water rights alone
at $2,200,000.
Third, the Corps real estate commission seems to operate in
somewhat of a policy vacuum. For example, the real estate
division has never consulated with their Corps colleagues
involved in CALFED to determine whether the Corps would have an
interest in acquiring the water rights of Little Holland. We
did, and the answer was an unqualified yes.
Finally, the Corps has been unable to discriminate between
the value and therefore, the price that should be paid for
varying qualities of habitat. What I think is that the Corps
appraised comparative value of all inundated land equally
regardless of the quality of the habitat.
To summarize, there are important key lessons out of Little
Holland tract and experience that may be relevant to the
committee.
First and foremost, it is important which agencies are
given responsibility for carrying out the land acquisition
program. Certainly the Corps of Engineers should not have a
role in this part of the CALFED program. They lack the
expertise, and in particular, they lack the knowledge of water
rights. In my view, the Bureau of Reclamation should have the
lead in this process.
Two, there should be clear lines of communication between
the real estate division of various agencies that operate in
the valley and the Delta, and the Federal officials involved in
the CALFED process. It should be clear to all Federal officials
involved in land acquisitions in the region that CALFED has set
a high priority on acquiring prime habitat and water rights for
environment purposes.
Three, a concerted effort must be made to ensure that the
Federal Government is able to quickly and efficiently determine
the fair market value of prime habitat and at the same time,
carry out the acquisition in a timely manner.
Four, Federal appraisal standards should be modified to
allow the use of sales involving nonprofit organizations and
government agencies. The Delta and the islands within the Delta
are very unique, and the primary sales of late involve either
nonprofit organizations or government agencies. Automatic
exclusion of these recent sales results in appraisals that do
not reflect the current value of the land and water rights.
In conclusion, as you can imagine, this has been a very
frustrating experience. This is a prime piece of property with
wetlands and wildlife. Congress has instructed the Corps to
acquire the property including the water rights and the funds
have been appropriated, yet 15 months after the Congress
directed that the property be acquired, the sale has still not
closed.
Certainly, if this kind of experience is repeated, it will
undermine the kind of willing seller requirement that will be
needed for an aggressive CALFED land acquisition program to be
successful.
Mr. Chairman, while my situation might have been somewhat
unique, I understand you have testimony before you that has
been submitted from other landowners that reflect similar
concerns. I am the landlord, I am the landowner who would like
to be allowed by the Corps to fix my levees and farm the land
or sell it at a fair market value, neither of which I can
presently do.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[Statement of W. Ashley Payne may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, Mr. Payne mentioned
various recommendations about how land acquisitions should be
handled in the Bay-Delta program. What is your perspective on
these recommendations?
Ms. Johnson. On these specific recommendations?
Mr. Doolittle. Yes.
Ms. Johnson. I think that if gestures are made, that if
interest is shown by the government to acquire land, that they
should follow through as expeditiously as possible.
I think that the CALFED program provides an opportunity to
see these things happen in a more coordinated fashion to
identify the appropriate agency to take title.
One of the situations that we have now is all of the
different State and Federal agencies who have land acquisition
authority or responsibilities have different priorities,
different mandates, different processes for completing those.
Some are more efficient than others; all have fairly
lengthy bureaucratic needs that they need to move through.
Mr. Snow, in his testimony earlier in answering a question,
suggested that one way to go about this might be to have money
granted to organizations that can do the kind of work in a more
expeditious manner. I would support that.
The other recommendation, and I am sorry, I didn't make a
note of each of the recommendations he made. Perhaps if you
have a specific question about one of his recommendations, you
could refer me to it.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, you have heard an outline of the
problems that he experienced in trying to sell his property.
Here you have a situation where the Corps has actually
determined that it is in the nation's interest to get it. It
has been authorized, money has been appropriated, and yet we
still can't accomplish it and haven't accomplished it.
Hopefully, it can happen.
Ms. Johnson. I can say that we have extensive experience
working with a variety of agencies on land acquisition.
Mr. Doolittle. Does one stand out over the other in terms
of being easier to deal with?
Ms. Johnson. It is very highly variable. It depends on the
deal, it depends on the time, it depends on whether the money
is available before going in to try and do the deal or if they
are trying to solicit it after the fact.
On the whole, we have had very good experiences working
with them. I know that landowners as a rule have expressed a
preference for working with private entities over working
especially with the Federal Government.
Mr. Doolittle. So the Federal Government would rank last in
the agencies to be dealt with?
Ms. Johnson. As I said, it is highly variable, and it
depends on the deal. I think that what CALFED is proposing is
to come up with a mix of approaches that will accomplish what
needs to be accomplished for its mission.
Mr. Doolittle. The Corps isn't here to defend themselves,
but I don't know--Mr. Payne, were these people in the real
estate division, even though they were with the Corps?
Did these people live in California or was this something
that was done back in Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Payne. No, this has been handled by the Sacramento
department of the Corps.
Mr. Doolittle. How could you live in California and not
recognize the water rights issue? That sounds like it is an
absolutely different proposal.
Mr. Payne. We requested private counsel.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I guess no one is here to defend the
Corps today in this group, and they are supposed to be one
giving live testimony in committees, even in this one. Of the
various Federal alternatives, they are thought to be one of the
more reasonable Federal agencies to deal with, but they have
their problems, too.
Ms. Kamei, having once resided in the Bay Area for a number
of years, I am intrigued that it is your assertion that this is
the number one business location in the United States. Is that
a point of view accepted by the whole or is that local pride in
the Bay Area?
Ms. Kamei. Having lived in the Bay Area 16 years, perhaps
it sort of grows on you, but it is generally the case and it
has attracted quite a number of firms, especially the high-tech
firms, to our area, and I know there is always the element of
going to other areas, but it seems to be one that draws people
to the West Coast.
Mr. Doolittle. And you said it is the second in the world.
From that list you are using, what is the first in the world?
Ms. Kamei. Singapore.
Mr. Doolittle. Singapore is the first business location in
the world?
Ms. Kamei. And I did confirm it with my colleague who is
representing business here today, Sunne, and she might have
more information to add.
Mr. Doolittle. OK.
Ms. McPeak. Fortune magazine published in November of '94
their list as they do annually of best locations for business
within the United States and in the world, and that is the
ranking that Rosemary is quoting.
They change from year to year their ranking, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Is this a thing that takes into account the
number of five-star hotels and things like that? Are there all
those in the rankings?
Ms. McPeak. Actually, no. In that particular year, Fortune
hired a consulting firm who looked at knowledge-based
industries and what the change was happening globally, and so
that also helps explain the ranking internationally of
Singapore, so it was more looking at what has been the trend in
comparative advantage and the globalization.
Mr. Doolittle. That is very interesting. Let me ask you,
Ms. Kamei, how are the urban water users going to approach the
water use efficiency program that is contained in all three of
the long-term management alternatives?
Ms. Kamei. One of the things that we are working very
diligently with in the CALFED program is how conservation
programs and other programs and what we call BMPs, best
management practices, can be put in place for the short-term
and long-term and making that commitment.
We signed an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, among the
water users to implement those BMPs.
Mr. Doolittle. Ms. Johnson, can you give us some more
details on the role that Nature Conservancy is playing in
CALFED land acquisition efforts?
Ms. Johnson. Well, to my knowledge, CALFED has no land
acquisition efforts to speak of yet. It is not entirely clear
how that is going to play out.
What we are doing very aggressively now is trying to
develop projects for working with others with landowners, with
local conservancies, with a variety of agencies and interests
to try and develop the projects, get them ready to go so that
when the money is made available, it could be spent effectively
and quickly.
We are working in a number of areas that overlap not
coincidentally with the CALFED maps that you have seen in your
packet.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me ask my colleagues if we could have
one round of questioning. Would anybody object if we just each
ask our questions?
Mr. Pombo. No.
Mr. Doolittle. I promise I won't take long. The 800,000
acre-feet of water for environmental purposes, would anyone
care to comment just as to the relative importance you assign
to clarifying exactly what that means in order to be able to
resolve so many of these issues that seem to depend upon that?
Mr. Golb. I will try. The current situation now with the
latest water allocation announcement which is at best
unfortunate, and this is a classic example of the type of
situation that led us to form CALFED and urge CALFED's
formation in 1994.
From time to time, we are going to see these problems
arise, and I don't think we should try to skirt the issue. They
can be extremely dangerous to this fragile coalition that we
worked so hard to put together, but they also stress something
very important, and that is that if CALFED isn't successful, we
will face more situations like this every year.
The future economic of California agriculture cannot
withstand more of these types of situations where water
supplies are uncertain or water supply cutbacks--that they will
continue to face those. The business interests can't either, so
I think that we look at it is, we have a difficult situation in
front of us.
I have heard the administrator of EPA, Mr. Perciasepe, and
the Deputy Secretary, both indicate they were willing to try to
work this out to the best of their ability. I take their word
for it, and I think they will.
We are going to have these things from time to time, and
the coalition that is here before you today recognizes it is a
problem for us, but in the long run, CALFED's success is
imperative, and that means full funding is necessary as well as
the full Federal support is necessary.
It is a difficult situation, but hopefully, we will be able
to get through it, but it shouldn't detract support from the
CALFED program.
Ms. McPeak. The 800,000 acre-feet issue from CVPIA and the
controversy that continues today is illustrative of the major
challenge faced by a project or a program such as CALFED which
is to understand there has to be a resolution of the issues
that treat all parties fairly.
No effort to protect the environment or restore habitat
that doesn't recognize the reality of meeting on a long-term
basis a reliable, sustainable water supply for ag, for urban,
for industry, is simply going to fail, and that is where we are
at.
The CALFED process represents that hope to look at how we
satisfy all those needs. I want to assure you that the Bay Area
business and Bay Area Council is very concerned about it. We
have formed--Rosemary is one of four co-chairs representing
four stakeholders, a Bay Area Water Policy Forum. It was
launched by Dick Rosenberg, who is the past chair, retired
chair and CEO of Bank of America.
Next week, we will be discussing the 800,000 acre-feet
issue to try to better understand it, but the fact of the
matter is that in isolation trying to restore habitat without
understanding it must go hand in hand with meeting water needs
in the State, is simply not going to succeed ultimately.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me follow up with you, Ms. McPeak, if I
may. I believe you are really from the east Bay, but since you
represent the Bay Area Council, may I ask you if you could give
us details about what money or water, if any, the city of San
Francisco, which gets its water from its system, has
contributed to the Bay-Delta restoration efforts?
Ms. McPeak. Actually, I should be even more forthcoming in
disclosing that I am actually from the San Joaquin dairy and
grew up on a dairy farm. You have to have done that to really
understand what the perspective of farmers is in all of this.
All of the water agencies within the Bay Area are committed
to the Bay-Delta process and the urban water agencies within
the State of California which the city and county of San
Francisco is also one as is the Santa Clara Valley Water
District involved in the CALFED process.
They individually as water districts are investing sums of
money to look at what is it going to take to reach a solution.
They are collectively through the California Urban Water
Association participating in the process. As you are probably
very familiar with, many issues that San Francisco Department
of Water and Power has specifically been involved in trying to
resolve on their watershed, I would just to be progressive in
looking at how they carry their fair-share responsibility in
restoration of the habitat, even though they are not taking out
of the Delta pool.
Mr. Doolittle. If you had the information today or else
later, maybe just tell us in a letter what they actually are
doing to contribute to Bay-Delta restoration effort?
Ms. McPeak. Mr. Chairman, if that is your request, we
certainly will follow through and ask----
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Payne, I wanted to ask you, in the
appraisal process, did the Corps itself predominate or does the
real estate division have the upper hand?
Mr. Payne. Well, I am going to reconsider for the CALFED
part of it. What we would like to do, we have had informal
discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation through the Interior
Department in working with them.
We also need to clarify the appraisal process that they
have used, and I think this is going to be important for all
future purposes, because if you use the value--if you can't use
the value of sales to government which are the majority of the
sales in this area--I mean, there are no other comps that are
available.
Mr. Doolittle. When you repaired those levees back in the
early 1980's, I guess it was, were you shocked when the Corps
took the position it did?
Mr. Payne. Yes. We were repairing the levees in 1991.
Mr. Doolittle. Oh, in '91.
Mr. Payne. And some of the damage to the tract and the
drought contributed to the water bank, which gave us some money
to fix the levee. The Corps came after me due to the fact that
I had not got a permit, but we had been fixing the levees for
20 years under a blanket permit.
Mr. Doolittle. And the permit was to do what?
Mr. Payne. It was to build the levee. You were supposed to
have a permit to build the levee.
Mr. Doolittle. Right, because they were interested in that
building on wetland?
Mr. Payne. Yes, yes.
Mr. Doolittle. So you had a permit to do that?
Mr. Payne. Right, because where the ranch sits, it is in
the old bypass and the State has always had rights over the
ranch during the flood season, but after that, we were always
able to go back and fix the levees and farm the ranch.
Mr. Doolittle. And that permit number three is one of those
nationwide permits they are phasing out now?
Mr. Payne. Yes. That caught us by surprise, because even
the State Department of Water Resources who we sold the water
to, we were in contact with them. They were responsible for
getting any necessary permits.
Mr. Doolittle. When you are a landowner with some piece of
unusual land like that, when you listen to these stories, what
do you do, call your attorney to ask if you can do anything
with it? Is that the first step you have to take?
Mr. Payne. You mean before----
Mr. Doolittle. Yes.
Mr. Payne.--or do you mean after----
Mr. Doolittle. When you have a levee to be repaired or some
act you want to take on your land, I wouldn't think to call
anybody, but----
Mr. Payne. No. In the past we never had. We would just go
and do the dredging and they sent their barge up and patched up
the levees and our ranch was easy to drain. It has a flat feed
and it is low so the water moves out, and when the tide comes
in, it will fill, and then it goes down through this small
drainfield by gravity.
Mr. Doolittle. That would account for the situation where
water that they hold back on the river bottom lands. They have
to get a permit. They can't just let it go back into the river
even, because that violates one of these standards.
Mr. Snow, I know you have heard Mr. Payne's story, and
since the Corps of Engineers is part of your CALFED process, do
you think you might be able to unravel this situation and get
it resolved?
Mr. Snow. If I paraphrase, the question was is that I am
going to straighten out the Corps?
Mr. Doolittle. That would be a truly Herculean task, but do
you think you might at least help one end of the Corps to
understand the other end?
Mr. Snow. Absolutely. I think one of the benefits, and
Leslie already spoke of this, is that in CALFED, we are trying
to get all the people at the table at the same time. So we are
starting to speak with the same objectives, goals, and approach
to dealing with these issues, and I think there are probably a
lot of issues at play in Mr. Payne's situation, but clearly,
there is no question that part of it is the issue of left hand/
right hand. Nobody knows what is going on, that it is not being
coordinated, and that is one of the things that we have to
accomplish in this.
I would hope that in our situation that a valuable piece of
habitat like that that we can lay out a logical strategy for
acquisition of a situation where you have a willing seller and
a location that has valuable habitat come to us, so that we can
run that to ground instead of becoming a saga on how government
doesn't work.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, and I invite Mr. Pombo to ask his
questions.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Payne, throughout
this entire process and I had the opportunity to read your
testimony previously, before your land flooded, were you in the
position of being a willing seller of your property? Were you
interested in selling your property to the Federal Government
at that time?
Mr. Payne. We had actually sold the property at one time in
the early '80's to a Spanish company----
Mr. Pombo. Yes.
Mr. Payne. [continuing]--and they couldn't get the money,
and at that time, we had to foreclose. At that time, no one was
offering us anything, and if we were offered a reasonable
price, yes, we probably would have been willing to sell to
anyone.
Mr. Pombo. Since all of this happened, since it flooded and
you had the problems fixing it, is it farmable now? I mean, are
you farming it currently?
Mr. Payne. No. I can't get a permit to close the levees and
the levees, what they do is they keep the tidal waters out in
the summertime, and that is why we drained it every year when
the levees broke, and then we would start farming it as soon as
the ground was dry.
Mr. Pombo. So you are unable to farm it, so it is no
longer--can you still use it for crop management?
Mr. Payne. Well, if you did, yes. If you did close the
levee and drain the ranch, you could farm it.
Mr. Pombo. But the government won't let you close it.
Mr. Payne. Right, but we haven't farmed it, you see, for--
this will be the sixth year that it has been inundated, and we
have got a large growth of weeds in there and willow trees have
sort of taken over, which make it a beautiful wetland, but to
clear it and reclaim it now, six years later, would be pretty
expensive.
Mr. Pombo. Is there anyone, any other person other than
Federal agencies or a conservation group that would purchase
your property? Is there any support other than preserving it as
a habitat or a wetland?
Mr. Payne. Well, yes. If you cleared it, you could go back
to farming it.
Mr. Pombo. But they are not going to let you fix the
levees?
Mr. Payne. That is true, so we are sort of--yes. The only
thing now that we can do with it is sell it to a government
agency who wants it.
Mr. Pombo. So part of the problem with your appraisals is
that it is in a different condition today than it was when you
originally sold it or when it was appraised, because it is not
farmland anymore, and they won't let you do anything with it,
right?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. This is the kind of thing that concerns me, and
I know Ms. Johnson, your organization or group or whatever you
call it is involved with the purchase of a lot of these
properties like this, and one of the things that concerns me
about this whole process that we are going into is exactly what
happened with this case, and that there won't be anybody else
to buy it because you can't do anything else with it.
How do you step in and keep something like this from
happening?
Ms. Johnson. That is a complicated question. I don't think
that the Nature Conservancy, for instance, could prevent
something like this from happening, and we have no ability to
influence regulatory action.
I do think, however, that one of the problems that we see
is that--I mean, the very fact that repairing a levee is a
regulatory issue when it comes to wetlands or endangered
species, is a symptom of the fact that we have so little
habitat left.
We are fighting our endangered species battles in
irrigation ditches and on levees. It shouldn't be like that,
and I am not saying that we shouldn't be fighting the battles
to protect the species. What I am saying is that we should
restore their habitat, not their habitat in ditches and on
levees.
If we have sufficient habitat to have a healthy ecosystem
and healthy species populations, we wouldn't run into issues
like that, so I think that maybe that is a very direct way of
saying that is how we do these things, we can prevent
situations like this.
Mr. Pombo. In the CALFED process, what role do you see the
Nature Conservancy playing? I have this map here that has a
broad area outlined and that area that you see there is my
district, and obviously, my constituents see that and I begin
to get phone calls.
How would you respond when you see a map like this, how
does your organization respond to it?
Ms. Johnson. I will answer that in a couple of ways. One
is, when we do projects and we are doing increasingly large
scale projects because we understand that to really accomplish
the kinds of conservation and ecosystem conservation that we
are trying to do, we need to do things that are big. You don't
do just little postage-stamp sized preserves.
We generally don't release our maps until we have spoken to
all the landowners who are potentially going to be affected by
any activity that we are contemplating.
When we see these maps, I think a couple of things. One is,
we are actively working currently in several places that are
indicated on the maps, and as such, you asked the question
earlier of Mr. Snow, when are you going to start reaching out
to some of these landowners, letting them know what you are
contemplating.
We have already talked to a lot of those landowners, and
actually we are approached by landowners on a fairly frequent
basis saying that they would like to sell their land. Often, we
find that--I forget who it was on the earlier panel who said
that a lot of these lands are unique types of lands; they are
riparian lands, flood-prone lands, places were in many cases a
landowner might actually, and we have found actually does
welcome the opportunity to perhaps sell their land or perhaps
enter into something short of a real estate transaction.
One of the things that we are trying to pursue in a lot of
the areas we are working is a whole spectrum of activities.
Sometimes, it is by conservation easement on existing park land
that enables the farmer to continue farming, but also protects
the value of that property. Also, a lot of agricultural land is
good wetland habitat.
We are working on wildlife-compatible farming practices,
doing experiments and research in trying to develop more of
them.
I think that there are a lot of different types of activity
that contribute to ecosystem restoration that aren't
necessarily outright acquisition, and I know that we are very
directly involved in working with CALFED on a development
theory for an ecosystem restoration program, and they are
contemplating only those types of activity.
I think that today we have perhaps over-focused on the land
acquisition element, and the areas that are indicated on the
map are the areas that need to be restored, not necessarily the
areas that need to be acquired.
Mr. Pombo. I was agreeing with you until you said that last
piece and then you kind of threw me for a minute.
Ms. Johnson. Can I clarify?
Mr. Pombo. Yes. You have the map in front of you, but if
you take this broad area--this map is on page 45. If you take
this broad area and say that this needs to be restored----
Ms. Johnson. Well, in this case, the map----
Mr. Pombo. You are talking about literally several billion
dollars' worth of agricultural properties and the way that they
are outlined here is watershed management for final projects,
watershed management for habitat wildlife quality, and the
impact that would have on my district to whether they were
acquired or not, if they were restored to something that would
fit into those broad categories, the economic impact on my part
of California would be immense.
Ms. Johnson. I must apologize. I was not--I didn't recall
all the different maps that were in this briefing book. I was
referring specifically to the maps that had to do with areas
where they want to do land acquisition and restoration.
As I understand it, the upper watershed management area is
talking more about compatible--maybe putting in buffer strips
along headwaters of streams or looking at best management
practices for grazing management or timber management. It is a
much more limited set of activities that is proposed for the
upper watershed. It is not full restoration of the upper
watershed, so I apologize for that confusion.
Mr. Pombo. That is OK. That scared me.
Ms. Johnson. I was thinking of a different map than you
were looking at.
Mr. Pombo. There are a number of different maps in here and
I realize that.
Mr. Golb, you participated in this process and I understand
that you are on the ecosystem roundtable, and what happens in
that process when you can't reach a consensus on an issue?
Mr. Golb. We haven't had that. So far in the ecosystem
roundtable process, we have been working with CALFED to
identify different priorities in terms of what are the issues
that need to be addressed with the watershed and the river
system within an area; what are the types of actions that we
might pursue.
So far, those have been fairly objective scientific
evaluations and issues that we have been looking at. I think
the process that you are describing where there could be
potential conflict will happen when you start looking at what
are the specific actions that we might consider, and then what
are the specific projects. Do we do this fish screen project or
do we do that one; do we try to restore this wetland habitat or
do we do that; do we try to acquire this tract of land or that
piece of property.
In that case, there will be disagreement and there will be
disagreement based on a number of reasons, and a lot of factors
will be involved.
I think what we are going to have to try to do is just do
our level best to adhere to criteria that we have already
established in terms of the objectives. What are we really
trying to accomplish, what is the best way if we can do this to
protect or restore environmental values within the budget
without jeopardizing private property interests or other local
economic interests or community needs.
I think we can do it, but there will be some disagreement.
If we don't have a consensus, I think those projects probably
will fold.
Mr. Pombo. So you believe at this point that if there is
not consensus that they will move on to another issue?
Mr. Golb. I think the way Lester said it, and correct me if
I misstate this, but I think what we are looking at is for
example, one issue may be--we may be looking at two tracts of
property for acquisition for example.
For purposes of discussion, if one tract we don't have a
willing seller, regardless of its potential for environmental
value, I think that for this process, for this appropriation, I
think that tract will not be pursued; whereas, if we have
another tract maybe that has less environment value but we do
have a willing seller, we do have community support, I think
that tract would probably be proposed to the Bay-Delta Advisory
Council for purchase.
Mr. Pombo. In general, how do you feel that the landowners
themselves have been included in this process?
They talk about the stakeholders and a lot of people get
put in a room and they talk about the stakeholders, but how
would the individual property owners be included in this
process?
Mr. Golb. We need to do a better job in contacting the
individual landowners, there is no doubt about that. On this
panel, for example, Mr. Payne is the only direct landowner that
is involved with the CALFED process.
Unless a small, two-bedroom home in Sacramento, I think
this would apply, but I would think the way that Lester talked
about earlier is that what we are attempting to do is bring in
the community interests and bring in the landowners so they can
see this map.
You are exactly right. When a lot of people see these maps,
there is going to be great concern, and we talked about some of
the skepticism earlier, but Lester has done a pretty good job
so far, and the CALFED process has been pretty good about
public outreach. A lot of that is going to fall to us, people
that represent water districts, farmers, botany groups, county
supervisors.
We have been working with Lester to try to do that. We are
going to have to do some more outreach so that some guy doesn't
wake up one morning and get in the mail a document like this
that shows his property, his livelihood, is targeted for
acquisition, and I don't think that's what Lester intended with
these documents.
And as Leslie indicated, those documents don't
necessarily--the maps don't target lands so much for
acquisition as they do areas for restoration, and there are a
lot of activities that Lester has proposed and the CALFED
process has proposed for this $143 million appropriation that
will be restoration not related to acquisition.
Mr. Pombo. The appropriation includes a huge amount of
money for acquisition, and when I look through this, I see maps
and when you have tens of millions of dollars in here that are
for acquisition and you have maps, one thing leads to another.
As I said, I already have constituents that have contacted
me and said I am within one of these squiggly lines or I am on
one of these maps and I don't want to be, how do I get out, and
I don't know what to tell them at this point how they get out.
You are not going to drop this and have a blind spot in the
middle of it, but that is one of my great concerns about the
way these processes get put together is that the property
owners are not included in this process to the point where they
know what is going on, whether they are willing sellers,
whether they are the kind of people that would call the Nature
Conservancy and say come get my land, I am not making any
money, the price is terrible.
Whatever it is, that happens and I know it does, but there
is a cattle rancher that entered into a long-term conservation
easement with the Nature Conservancy on their entire ranch, and
that was one of their ways of making it.
I understand that happens, but if you don't include the
property owners from the very beginning, it makes my life that
much more difficult, because then they contact me.
Mr. Gold. A couple of suggestions. The first is--let me
give you Lester's home phone number to give to your
constituents.
The second is that there are certainly ample stories like
Mr. Payne's. I have never had that happen to me, but there are
certainly ample stories out there, and you have some in your
own district where Federal agencies have purchased land or
attempted to purchase land in a coercive or unfair or overly
aggressive fashion, and we have lots of stories like that
around.
I think what we are trying to do in CALFED is we are
attempting to restore the environment in such a way that we
don't also damage economic interests and community interests,
and earlier in my remarks, I talked about some of the solution
principles that CALFED has adopted. There are six of them, and
one of them is no redirected impacts to an individual interest,
and we are going to hold CALFED accountable to that.
I think what that means, the practical effect of that is,
number one, we have to do a better job of notifying landowners
that CALFED is interested in land acquisition or easements or
some other type of arrangement in the area where they own
property.
Number two, I think one of the things we need to look at is
possibly utilizing entities like the Nature Conservancy to
bring them in. They have a wonderful track record with local
and private landowners and using entities like that to work
with local constituencies.
The third thing, I think we need to pursue very carefully,
very carefully, the last thing we want is the Federal
Government agencies to be getting more tracts of land in the
State of California, and I think that California tends to do
these things.
You can rest assured that on behalf of the farmers and
landowners that I represent, that I will make sure I do my best
that CALFED follows these principles, and that we achieve the
restoration providing suitable alternatives that we are not
impacting individual or community interests.
You and I both know that in a community, particularly in an
agricultural community, there is also an industry, an entire
industry that is dependent on production of crops, trucking,
fertilizer, marketing, merchandising, and we can't have those
lands come off the county tax roll and impact the county
government's tax receipts which has an ultimate effect on the
entire community.
We have a lot of work to do, and so far, I have been pretty
confident and comfortable with the process that Lester has
established. I am certain that Sunne, as the co-chair of the
Bay-Delta Advisory Council, will also be watching this very
carefully.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I know that we have talked a lot
about the private property owners in this process, and I am
concerned about how this all works. The fact that we are
dealing with endangered species the way that we are today, I
don't think it is the way it should be done, but in that whole
process of trying to restore the environment, trying to reach
some common sense with some of these laws, I think we have to
be careful that everybody is included at the table when those
decisions are being made.
On behalf of the Chairman who had another meeting and had
to leave, I want to thank you for your testimony. There will be
further questions that will be submitted in writing, and if you
could answer those quickly on a routine basis, it would be
appreciated by the committee, and on behalf of the Chairman and
myself and the rest of the committee, I apologize to you for
the length of this hearing. It was not a normal situation in
which it came about and I apologize to you for that, but thank
you very much for sticking around and for your testimony. It
was greatly appreciated.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
Testimony of Lester A. Snow, Executive Director, CALFED Bay-Delta
Program
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power Resources, I am Lester A. Snow, Executive Director of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide a status report on the Bay-
Delta Program and to answer any questions you might have.
Background
Before I describe our Program, I would like to provide some
context for you. The San Francisco Bay and Delta System is the
largest estuary on the West Coast, supporting fisheries,
wildlife and agriculture, while providing more than 20 million
people with their water supply. It has been referred to as the
crossroads of the State's economy and thriving ecosystem, yet
it has fallen victim to competing interests, unplanned growth,
and a declining ecosystem. It continues to deteriorate to the
point where people are concerned that the very jobs and
economic competitiveness of the State are at stake unless we
can move forward and fix the problems in the system.
The San Francisco Bay-Delta system has been used and abused
for over 150 years. It has been the source of fresh water for
agriculture and cities since this region was developed. It has
also been the area where we have dumped mine tailings and toxic
waste, and eliminated habitat over a long period of time. We
know there is no quick fix, that we can go out and implement
one thing and all of a sudden the system is healthy again. We
recognize it has taken a long time to get to this point; our
current situation is the culmination of a multitude of impacts.
We know we must devise a strategy that addresses all of those
impacts, and moves us forward in a logical, productive fashion.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a collaborative effort to
address these issues.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has been charged by the
Governor of California and the Secretary of the Interior to
develop a comprehensive plan to resolve environmental and water
management problems associated with the Bay-Delta system. Our
Program has the task of instituting, through an open process
that includes participation by the stakeholder community, a
long-term settlement that everyone can live with. At this time
I am pleased to report that tremendous progress has been made
and I am optimistic that it will continue.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was established as a result of
the Framework Agreement entered into between the State and
Federal governments in mid-1994. That agreement set forth three
areas in which it was agreed additional coordination and
cooperation would be pursued to alleviate uncertainty and
conflict within California's water management regime and the
various overlapping jurisdictional disputes between Sacramento
and Washington, D.C. Specifically, the Framework Agreement set
forth a process to facilitate the following: formulation of
state water quality standards pursuant to the Clean Water Act
which could be certified by the Federal and State governments;
and, improved operational coordination of the State Water
Project and the federal Central Valley Project to more
effectively and efficiently manage the state's water supplies
to meet all beneficial uses, and a long-term planning process
to comprehensively ``fix'' the Bay-Delta system.
The Bay-Delta Program
That long-term planning process is the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. We began our effort in the spring of 1995. In the two
years since we started, we have made remarkable progress and
enjoyed a period of great cooperation among all parties
concerned with Bay-Delta issues. Considering the complexity and
controversial nature of the issues involved, this is an
important achievement and one that will serve California and
the nation long into the future.
The Program is divided into three phases. During Phase I,
from June 1995 to September 1996, the Program developed a
mission statement, identified problems, developed objectives
and several guiding principles (the ``Solution Principles ''),
and designed three alternative solutions to Bay-Delta related
problems. In Phase II, from November 1996 to September 1998,
the Program will conduct a broad-based environmental review of
the three alternative solutions and will identify a final
preferred solution. Phase II will also include technical
analyses of the alternatives and development of an
implementation plan. During Phase III, starting in late 1998 or
early 1999 and lasting for many years, the preferred
alternative will be implemented in stages.
As the Program seeks to resolve issues, it is important to
note that our mission is to do so in a manner that serves all
beneficial uses of the system. Additionally, we are guided by
six solution principles that will define acceptability of a
solution. These principles are that the preferred alternative
should: (1) reduce conflicts in the system; (2) be equitable;
(3) be affordable; (4) be durable both as to project life and
adaptability to unforseen changes in future needs; (5) be
implementable; and, (6) perhaps most critically, have no
redirected impacts. Our intention is not to propose a solution
that solves problems for some at the expense of others, but to
provide improvement for all beneficial uses.
As I mentioned, the Program is addressing four major areas
of concern: ecosystem restoration; water supply and water
supply reliability; water quality; and, levee stability. We
have developed three comprehensive solution alternatives, which
include multiple actions focused on these problems, to carry
forward through the environmental impact analysis. First, I
will touch on the common aspects of all three alternatives,
then briefly describe the distinguishing features of each.
Alternatives Under Review
Each of the three alternatives include implementation of
what we call the ``common programs'' for each area of concern.
These common programs are virtually identical in every
alternative based on the understanding that significant
baseline improvements must be made in all four areas. They are:
The Water Use Efficiency Common Program takes two
approaches: make more efficient use of water exported from the
Delta, and reclaim water after use. It encourages urban water
agencies to recycle water and to make greater use of previously
developed Best Management Practices, which are commonly-
accepted standards for water conservation. Similarly, it urges
agricultural water users to implement cost-effective measures
such as the Efficient Water Management Practices, which are
standards for conserving agricultural water.
The Ecosystem Restoration Common Program seeks to restore
Bay-Delta ecosystem functions by taking advantage of natural
processes and restoring some of the system's natural resilience
to stressors like drought. The common program gives preference
to activities that benefit several species and improve other
resource areas, including water quality, levee stability, and
water supply reliability. Activities could include improving
shallow water and riparian habitats, restoring riparian and San
Joaquin River habitats, acquiring water to boost instream
flows, and controlling non-native species.
The Water Quality Common Program focuses on limiting the
release of pollutants, particularly salinity, selenium,
pesticide residues, and heavy metals, into the Bay-Delta system
and its tributaries. Activities could include improving the
management of urban stormwater runoff, cleaning up mine sites
and limiting toxic drainage from them, providing incentives for
urban water agencies to upgrade their filtration systems,
managing agricultural drainage, developing watershed protection
programs, and offering incentives to retire agricultural lands
whose discharge most degrades San Joaquin River water quality.
The Levee System Integrity Common Program addresses levee
maintenance and stabilization, subsidence reduction, emergency
management, beneficial reuse of dredged materials, and creation
of habitat corridors as mitigation for negative impacts. Delta
islands would be prioritized for work, a strategic plan
devised, and stable funding sources identified with the goal of
bringing as many levees as possible up to a higher standard of
stability.
In brief, the three alternatives under environmental review
are distinguishable by their conveyance components and are: (1)
continuing with essentially the current storage and conveyance
system and complete reliance upon the common programs to
achieve the project purposes; (2) a significantly modified
through-Delta conveyance system that would reconfigure many of
the sloughs and channels; and, (3) a dual conveyance option
would add an isolated facility to the modified through-Delta
alternative. In all cases, we will analyze ranges of
appropriate storage options north of the Delta, south of the
Delta and, perhaps, in the Delta. In addition to appropriate
surface storage options (which could include upstream of the
Delta--supplied by the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers or
their tributaries, south of the Delta--supplied with water
exported from the Delta, or in the Delta), groundwater storage
and conjunctive use projects will be part of our Program, and
we are working with local communities to gauge interest and to
ensure local concerns are being satisfactorily addressed.
While we have winnowed down to three alternative types, we
began with hundreds, reduced that to 20 and then 10 before
arriving at the three we have now. That process of developing
and reducing the number of alternatives took approximately
eighteen months. It was a process that was carried out with a
high level of agency and public input.
Public Input
In addition to numerous public workshops and public
meetings, we are fortunate to have the Bay-Delta Advisory
Council (BDAC), a chartered Federal advisory committee,
contribute to our effort. BDAC meets monthly or bimonthly to
provide advice, comment and recommendations for improvement. In
addition, BDAC has created fact finding Work Groups that are
forums for in-depth discussion on policy questions that impact
the Program, including: how will success of an ecosystem
restoration program be defined?, how can water use efficiency
be maximized in a realistic manner?, what assurances are needed
to ensure that the program is implemented tomorrow as it's
designed today?, and, what sort of financing arrangements make
sense?
BDAC, its work groups, and our public workshops all provide
avenues for public participation, and are a continual check for
us to judge how we are doing in meeting the needs of all
Californians.
The incredible cooperation among and between State and
Federal agencies, as well as the comfort level and trust that
the stakeholder community has for our Program, has led to an
additional role for our Program in addition to development of
the long-term comprehensive solution. That role is to act as a
coordinating point for ecosystem restoration activities
throughout the Bay-Delta system.
Because there were, and are, ongoing restoration efforts in
the system, there was a need to coordinate activities and
ensure consistency with the long-term strategy CALFED was
developing. The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Coordination
Program is developing a planning and project selection process
to begin early implementation for ecosystem restoration
activities using existing programs and commitments. This
process focuses primarily on Category III funding decisions for
1997 and 1998 and coordination with CVPIA, but also begins to
integrate restoration efforts of other closely related
restoration programs. (Category III projects are projects that
do not cost water to implement that the stakeholders agreed to
help fund as part of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord.) Potential
near-term projects include fish screens and ladders, riparian
habitat restoration, wetlands development, ecosystem
restorative watershed management actions, and other Bay-Delta
ecosystem restoration actions.
To provide a broad range of representative interests to
this process, the Ecosystem Roundtable was established as a
sub-committee of BDAC. The Roundtable is charged with
developing criteria and recommending approval of ``early
implementation'' projects. These are projects that are
consistent with the long-term plan the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
is developing, and for which there is broad support across
constituencies.
The Roundtable will make recommendations on funding
projects to BDAC and through BDAC to CALFED. Final decisions
will be made by the California Secretary for Resources and the
Secretary of the Interior.
As with the long-term Program, monitoring and evaluation of
success of these early implementation efforts will be a major
focus for us. We expect that over time, assessments and data
will indicate that we will need to adaptively manage the
system, (i.e., adjust specific projects or actions), both on a
macro-scale, for example, water project operations, and on a
more micro-scale, for example, a specific habitat enhancement
project. The monitoring methodology will be developed on a
project by project basis, but will probably include sampling,
site inspections, and other data collection and trend analysis.
As I stated at the outset, the Program has made incredible
progress in a relatively short amount of time. I attribute that
success to a number of factors. First and foremost we have a
staff of dedicated professionals, detailed from both State and
Federal agencies, that are literally transforming how
government works. Second, the agencies themselves have
committed to an unprecedented level of cooperation, and
understanding what is at stake, have made the Program a high
priority. Third, the intense involvement of the stakeholder
community. The water community has come together to seek a
satisfactory outcome. Working through BDAC and our workshops
and work groups, the technical expertise and policy advice we
receive from the stakeholder community is invaluable and
indicative of the importance they place on our Program's
success. Finally, the public's support for resolving
California's water problems, as evidenced by the passage of
Proposition 204, further illustrates the imperative we are all
working under.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program faces the challenge and
opportunity of a new approach in the methods of dealing with
resource issues. The challenge of cooperatively devising and
implementing a solution, while moving away from regulation and
litigation provides a model which minimizes conflict and
maximizes public and private support. I expect the Program to
meet this challenge resulting in a reliable water supply and
healthy environment. Future generations will bear the burdens
or reap the benefits depending upon how we proceed with these
problems today.
------
Statement of Honorable John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary, Department of
the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to be here this morning to discuss with you our
progress in developing a comprehensive long-term restoration
plan for California's Bay-Delta ecosystem. I am pleased that my
colleagues from the Environmental Protection Agency and State
of California are here with me. Our joint participation
demonstrates mutual concern, shared cooperation, and long-term
commitment to meeting the challenge to protect our resources.
The CALFED Program
In December 1994, Federal agencies, State agencies, and
representatives of agricultural, urban and environmental
organizations signed what is known as the Bay-Delta Accord. The
Accord described new ways to meet the requirements of several
statutes, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and the Clean
Water Act (CWA). It also called on State and Federal agencies
to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy to restore the
health of the Bay-Delta and simultaneously meet the water needs
of California's economy.
The CALFED Program identified the following major actions
necessary for meeting our goals:
(1) Ensure reliable water supplies for California's urban
and agricultural economies;
(2) restore the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem;
(3) improve water quality in the Bay-Delta and rivers
flowing into it; and
(4) enhance levee system stability.
In order to develop the Accord and carry out the long-term
Bay-Delta Program, Federal and State agencies combined forces
and formed CALFED. Four Federal agencies--the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Marine Fisheries Service--
began the effort. Six additional Federal agencies are about to
join CALFED--US Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Forest Service,
Western Area Power Administration, and the Army Corps of
Engineers. These additional agencies provide a vast array of
expertise and programs critical to our long-term restoration
efforts. Only through broad integration of policies and
programs, as well as new and creative ways of approaching
problems, can we realize the goals laid out in the Bay-Delta
Program. This year's tragic flooding is a prime example.
January 1997 Floods
Over the past several months, Federal and State agencies
have been responding to the January floods that wreaked havoc
throughout much of the Central Valley and the Bay-Delta
system's many tributaries. Army Corps of Engineers, in
collaboration with the CALFED and other Federal and state
agencies, has undertaken major efforts to repair flood
protection capabilities throughout the system. With the
organization of CALFED, we have a unique opportunity to
implement the restoration goals of the Bay-Delta Program and
the Administration's complementary floodplain management
strategies. Reducing flood damages and threats to life and
property through cost-effective, and where appropriate, non-
structural alternatives, can restore the natural values
inherent to the floodplain and adjacent lands, and provide
water quality, quantity, and ecosystem restoration benefits
central to the long-term Bay-Delta Program.
Bay-Delta Funding
With an overwhelming endorsement from California voters for
Proposition 204, bi-partisan support in the Congress that
resulted in the passage of authorizing legislation last fall,
and the unprecedented collaboration among the historically
feuding water interests in California, we have an incredible
opportunity to use the Bay-Delta funding provided for in the
President's budget as a down payment on this major restoration
effort.
The Program we are undertaking is one of the most
significant restoration programs in this country, and has
implications well beyond California. The Bay-Delta is the
largest estuary on the Pacific coast, and serves as a stop-over
point for hundreds of migratory birds and water fowl. The
estuary is also highly important for maintaining fish
populations. In addition, this system provides the water supply
necessary to support California's agricultural economy--an
economy that produces 40% of the country's fruits and
vegetables, as well as numerous other key crops that feed our
nation. These are some of the most productive lands in the U.S.
Conclusion
This Committee has recognized the importance of the Central
Valley to the health of California's economy and its diverse
natural resource base. The CALFED Program is an innovative and
unique approach to resolving complex resource issues that have
burdened the State for decades. The Federal and State agencies
are working together to develop solutions to these problems,
along with the myriad of constituents who will be affected by
this program--whether they are residents and landowners along
the rivers, farmers or urbanites who receive water from the
Central Valley, or fishermen who rely on healthy populations of
fish. We have a great opportunity to develop and implement the
most significant restoration program of our time. We can only
accomplish this if we all work together--Federal and State
agencies, Congress, local governments, and the myriad of
private and non-government interests for whom we all work.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
------
Testimony of Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources, State of
California
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources in the
Administration of California Governor Pete Wilson. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak today on the role of the State of
California in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and to answer any
questions that you have. This program and the improved
management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin/San Francisco Bay
Delta is one of Governor Wilson's top priorities, and we
appreciate the subcommittee providing this opportunity for us
to talk about the work we are doing.
background
Beginning with Governor Wilson's call for a comprehensive
solution to California's water management and ecosystem issues
in his Water Policy of 1992, in which he stated that ``nowhere
is there greater need for a comprehensive program than in the
Delta,'' California has been working toward a long-term
solution to the water-related problems of the State.
In June 1994, the State of California, through its Water
Policy Council (which I chair), and the United States, through
the Federal Ecosystem Directorate, reached an agreement to
cooperate in resolving water quality, water supply, and
endangered species issues of the San Francisco Bay-Delta. This
Framework Agreement formed CALFED and charged this entity with
developing the long-term solution to the problems of the Bay-
Delta. Shortly thereafter, in December of 1994, CALFED, in
cooperation with stakeholders and other interest groups,
developed a plan (``the December 15th Accord '') that set Bay-
Delta water quality standards and established guidelines for
coordinated state/federal operations of the State Water Project
and Federal Central Valley Project for a three year interim
period.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was launched in June 1995 and
began immediately to work with state and federal agencies and
stakeholder groups to develop a comprehensive solution. This
innovative, consensus-based approach has allowed CALFED to
establish a level of trust and cooperation among stakeholders
that is truly unprecedented in California.
Through extensive public meetings and workshops, CALFED has
made great progress toward developing the long-term plan. This
plan is being developed through a three phased process. During
Phase I, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program evaluated the range of
issues, problems, and actions related to the Bay-Delta estuary
through a series of public meetings and workshops. At the
conclusion of Phase I, the range of alternatives was narrowed
to three for the purpose of environmental review. The CALFED
Program is currently in the midst of Phase II, during which a
preferred alternative will be selected from among the three and
certified by the appropriate public entities. Phase III,
implementation, is expected to begin in Fall of 1998 and will
occur over a 20 to 30 year period.
state role in the calfed process
The State of California plays an important role in the
CALFED process through the participation of its member
agencies: the Resources Agency, which includes both the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Water
Resources, the California Environmental Protection Agency and
its State Water Resources Control Board. Each of these agencies
is charged with administering portions of Proposition 204 and
are also members of the Governor's Water Policy Council.
As members of CALFED, these state agencies attend the many
workshops, meetings, and public hearings through which the
long-term solution is being developed. More specifically, the
agencies attend meetings of the Ecosystem Roundtable (as
observers), CALFED Program Coordination Team, the CALFED
Management Team, and the CALFED Policy Team (co-chaired by
myself and Bob Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency). Many of the important issues
related to the CALFED Program, including coordination of the
various programs under Prop 204, are also discussed at meetings
of the Governor's Water Policy Council.
The California State Legislature also contribute toward
reaching the comprehensive solution envisioned by the CALFED
process. Many of our State Senators and Assembly Members
participated in the crafting of Senate Bill 900, which placed
Proposition 204 on the ballot in November of 1996. The
California Legislature has continued to pay close attention to
the progress of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and has taken up
some key issues during the current session, such as water
transfers, in an effort to assist with the overall solution.
The most important contribution toward achieving a solution
to the problems of the San Francisco Bay-Delta, however, has
come from the citizens of California. The participation of
stakeholders lies at the heart of the CALFED Program. Ranging
from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the Imperial Valley
bordering on Mexico to the Los Angeles region in the south and,
of course, the Great Central Valley, these stakeholders all
recognize that the CALFED Program is critical to our State's
well-being. The water which flows through the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers through the San Francisco Bay-Delta reaches
over twenty million people in the State, roughly 2 out of every
3 citizens. This water flows to the farms of the Central
Valley, to the high-tech factories of the Silicon Valley, and
to the homes and businesses of Southern California. At the same
time, the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is critical to the
ecological health of the State. Because of the ecological
degradation that has occurred in the Delta since large-scale
development began nearly one hundred fifty years ago, such
prized fish as the Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout have been
reduced to only a fraction of their former numbers. This level
of degradation extends to many other species and habitats
throughout the Bay-Delta system. Californians understand the
importance of water to our economy and to the environment and
the citizens of California acknowledged the importance of
fixing the Delta to California's well-being when they passed
Prop. 204 by a wide margin in November of 1996.
proposition 204
Proposition 204 was approved by 63% of the voters of
California. The objectives of Prop 204 are to provide a safe,
clean, affordable, and sufficient water supply to meet the
needs of California's residents, farms, and businesses; develop
lasting water solutions that balance economic and environmental
needs; restore ecological health for fish and wildlife; protect
the integrity of the State's water supply system; protect
drinking water quality; and, protect the quality of life in our
communities. Clearly, the goals of Prop 204 are synonymous with
those of the CALFED Program.
Prop 204 provides $995 million towards a variety of
ecosystem restoration and water management components in five
categories. Some of the money provided by Prop 204 will serve
to replenish existing programs, other funds will initiate new
programs--all of the money will contribute, directly or
indirectly, to achieving a solution to the problems of the Bay-
Delta. The following subaccounts of Prop 204 are expected to
contribute directly to the solution reached by the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program (the italic heading indicates the Accounts in
which the funding programs are listed):
Delta Improvements Account ($193 million)
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, ($93 million):
The CVPIA portion of Prop 204 includes funding to
contribute the required State match for restoration projects
undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau
of Reclamation. These funds are to be allocated through the
California Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources for
expenditure on projects outlined in the CVPIA. The Resources
Agency will be coordinating these efforts with the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program.
Category III, ($60 million):
The Category III Program was established as part of the
December 15th Accord of 1994 for the purpose of carrying out
ecosystem restoration for the Bay-Delta--in essence, a
recognition that improvements to the Bay-Delta ecosystem should
not be delayed until an overall plan is complete. To date,
stakeholders have contributed approximately $22 million for 38
ecosystem restoration projects and an additional $10 million is
anticipated in Fall of 1997. The $60 million contributed by the
State of California in Prop 204 for Category III will be
expended through the CALFED Process, including review by the
Ecosystem Roundtable and the Bay-Delta Advisory Council, and
approval by the CALFED Agencies. For a more complete
explanation of this process, please see the description in the
materials provided by Lester Snow, Program Manager of CALFED.
Delta Levees, ($25 million):
The Delta Levees funding will serve to improve the
integrity of the levee system of the Bay-Delta and to carry out
associated ecosystem restoration projects which result in a net
benefit to aquatic species. The levee system of the Delta
serves an important role in protecting important agricultural
lands and wildlife habitat and maintaining water quality. The
expenditure of these funds will occur through the existing
State Delta Flood Protection Program (SB 34) and will be
coordinated with the CALFED Program. During California's 1996
legislative session, several amendments were made to the Delta
Flood Protection Program through Assembly Bill 360, including a
requirement that the Program be implemented ``consistent with
the delta ecosystem restoration strategy of the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program''.
Delta Recreation Program, ($2 million):
The Delta Recreation Program is for the purpose of
implementing projects to increase public opportunities for
recreation in the Delta. Examples of this would include
acquisition of fee title, development rights, easements, or
other interests in land located in the Delta for the purpose of
public recreation. The provision of greater recreational
opportunities is consistent with and promotes the CALFED
Program objectives. The California Department of Parks and
Recreation will administer these funds and has proposed to
direct $1 million to grants to non-profits and other public
agencies and $1 million to Department projects.
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, ($3 million):
These funds contribute to covering the administrative costs
of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Water Supply Reliability Account ($117 million)
Water Conservation and Recharge, (S30 million):
The funds provided for water conservation and recharge will
assist the CALFED process by contributing to the goals of the
Water Use Efficiency Common Program (A strategy for addressing
issues of water use efficiency will be included for all 3
alternatives of the Programmatic EIR/EIS. The other common
programs of the CALFED Program are Ecosystem Restoration Common
Program, Water Quality Common Program, and Levee System
Integrity Common Program).
River Parkways Program, ($27 million):
The River Parkway Program subaccount is the only section of
Prop 204 which is subject to appropriation by the State
Legislature. These funds are available for acquisition and
restoration of riparian habitat, riverine aquatic habitat, and
other lands in close proximity to rivers and streams and for
associated river and stream trail projects. Although these
funds are available for use throughout the State, in his '97-
'98 Budget Governor Wilson proposes expenditure of
approximately $10 million on projects on the Napa, San Joaquin,
and other rivers in the Bay-Delta system.
Sacramento Valley Water Management and Habitat Protection,
($25 million):
The Sacramento Valley Water Management funds are provided
for the purpose of assisting local entities with water
management programs, such as conjunctive use programs, and to
implement ecosystem restoration projects. The specific projects
to be undertaken under this program have not yet been
identified, but the Resources Agency, the State Water Resources
Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, and the
stakeholder community are working cooperatively with the CALFED
Program to ensure that these efforts are consistent with the
long-term solution currently being developed.
Clean Water and Water Recycling Account, $235 million
Clean Water Loans/State Revolving Fund, ($80 million):
Small Community Grants, ($30 million):
Water Recycling, ($60 million):
Each of the above programs is administered by the State
Water Resources Control Board for the purpose of assisting
local governments with projects to improve local water quality,
supply infrastructure, and recycling capabilities. The Board
will utilize existing grant and loan programs to solicit and
select loan and grant proposals. Although these funds will not
be coordinated through the CALFED Program, each contributes to
better management of California's water resources.
Agricultural Drainage Treatment, ($30 million):
The Agricultural Drainage Treatment Program will be
implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board and will
contribute toward implementation of the CALFED Water Quality
Common Program.
Delta Tributaries Watershed Program, ($15 million):
The Delta Tributaries Watershed Program will contribute to
several of CALFED's Common Programs, including the Ecosystem
Common Program and the Water Quality Common Program. The State
Water Resources Control Board will administer this program and
has hosted several workshops in cooperation with CALFED and the
Resources Agency to receive input from stakeholders on proposal
selection criteria. The projects selected under this program
will be for the purposes of ecosystem restoration projects,
watershed management efforts, and fire management efforts and
must be consistent with the efforts of the CALFED Program.
CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program, ($390
million) (This account is not broken into subprograms):
The funds provided for this program will be available for
implementing the Ecosystem Restoration Program Component of the
CALFED Bay-Delta solution. The expenditure of these funds is
contingent upon the certification of the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report and a Record of Decision for the
Environmental Impact Statement (anticipated in Fall of 1998)
and a cost-share agreement between the State of California and
the United States for funding the CALFED solution to the
problems of the Bay-Delta.
Federal/State Cost-Share Agreement Requirement
As mentioned above, the $390 million CALFED Bay-Delta
Restoration Program funds must be accompanied by a cost-share
agreement with the federal government before expenditure. The
federal appropriations authorized in the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act also require a
cost-share agreement. To this end, a working group consisting
of three State and three federal representatives was formed and
is currently in the process of developing this agreement. The
agreement is expected to be completed within the next few
months.
Conclusion
The State of California has a tremendous stake in the
outcome of the CALFED process. Our future economic prosperity
and the health of our environment hinge upon the development
and implementation of a long-term solution that meets the needs
of all stakeholders. In the short time since its formation,
CALFED has made great progress toward this goal. At this point,
funding to begin implementing Category III actions and to
continue to develop the CALFED solution are critical. The State
of California has demonstrated a commitment to provide the
resources necessary to support the process through Proposition
204. We urge our federal counterparts to match this commitment
with the full appropriation of the authorized $143 million.
Governor Wilson indicated the critical importance of this
funding in his letter of March 31, 1997 to the House
Appropriations Committee, stating, ``This $143 million
appropriations is my highest priority for the energy and water
development appropriations bill.'' I ask that a copy of the
Governor's letter be made a part of today's hearing record.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I
look forward to answering any questions the subcommittee may
have.
------
March 31, 1997
The Honorable Joseph M. McDade
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I regret that our schedules did not permit us to get
together when I was in Washington last month. The reason I
wanted to meet with you was to urge your support for full
funding of the $143.3 million requested in the President's
budget as the initial federal contribution toward the
restoration of the San Francisco Bay-Delta. As you may know,
the funds included in the President's budget were authorized by
the Congress last year to partially match a $1 billion state
bond issue for water supply and environmental protection
approved by California's voters in November.
This $143.3 million appropriations is my highest priority
for the energy and water development appropriations bill. With
my active encouragement, the California Congressional
delegation and the Republican leadership were instrumental in
securing the authorization--now we need the appropriations. I
can assure you of strong bipartisan support for Bay-Delta
funding. The most important factor, however, is the breadth and
strength of support from the stakeholders in California
Environmentalists, farmers, and urban water users have all
banded together in an unprecedented coalition to find a non-
litigious solution to the water disagreements that have long
plagued our state. They are working together cooperatively,
along with the numerous state and federal agencies.
The federal authorization applies to the ecosystem spanning
the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds, an area that
is the source of nearly half the nation's fruits and
vegetables, as well as drinking water for 22 million
Californians. Congress has funded work in other ecosystems,
such as the Everglades and the Pacific Northwest forests.
However, compared to these areas, the budget request for the
Bay-Delta is very modest. This is true not only in absolute
terms, but also on a per capita and per acre basis. The funding
that I am asking you to provide contributes to accomplishing
the environmental common elements of a range of comprehensive
water supply and environmental alternatives that are being
aggressively fleshed out by all parties concerned.
The Bay-Delta model for environmental progress is one that
I am confident you can feel proud to support, and, in your role
as chairman of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, I
invite you to become a partner in our efforts.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
PETE WILSON
cc:The Honorable Vic Fazio, Ranking Minority Member
California Congressional delegation
------
Testimony of Robert W. Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
BACKGROUND
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee
on Water and Power Resources. I am Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator for Water in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). I have also been designated as the lead federal
official in the joint federal-State CALFED Bay-Delta Program by
the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of EPA, and
am appearing here today on behalf of the federal Departments
and Agencies that are members of what we have called
``ClubFed,'' the coordinating group for federal participation
in the CALFED process. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
As you may know, the CALFED program is a partnership
between the State of California and the federal government,
charged with developing a long-term comprehensive plan that
will restore ecological health and improve water management for
beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The original CALFED
federal members include EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Collectively, these federal members are
referred to as ``ClubFed.'' We are now making this partnership
forum even more effective by bringing in additional federal
agencies as members of ClubFed: the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture; the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey in the
Department of the Interior; and, the Western Area Power
Administration.
The Bay-Delta, as the hub of California's water system and
the largest and most productive estuary on the West coast, has
for decades been the focus of competing interests--economic and
environmental, urban and agricultural. Development activities
such as hydraulic mining, dredging and channelization, flood
control, unscreened water diversions, pollution, and large-
scale water supply projects have contributed to the degradation
of the Bay-Delta's ecosystem. This degradation resulted in many
problems, including declining water quality, decreasingly
reliable water supplies, deteriorating fish and wildlife
populations, and a fragile Delta levee system. Perhaps more
importantly, it also resulted in gridlock among the competing
stakeholder interests--environmental, agricultural, and urban
water users.
On December 15, 1994, federal Cabinet officials, key
California officials, and leading stakeholders signed the
momentous Bay-Delta Accord (``the Accord''). Though this Accord
was indeed momentous in itself, its primary importance lay not
so much in what it achieved at that time, as in the process it
launched, and the promising future for the Bay-Delta it allowed
all the interested parties to build.
The Accord was most important because it represented a
recognition that a consensus-oriented process was the only
route to fix the problems of the Bay-Delta, and that the
California water wars were ultimately futile and pointless for
everyone involved. The contestants in those wars recognized
that every major party, acting alone, could stop the
initiatives of every other major party. But no major party
could achieve its core objectives alone, without the agreement
of the others. That recognition was clearly true when the
Accord was signed. Almost two and a half years later, the
futility of efforts by some participants to go around that
process in various ways makes it clearer than ever--the
consensus-oriented route is the only route that will work for
anyone, because it has to work for everyone.
Today, I would like to briefly discuss, from the standpoint
of the federal ``ClubFed'' agencies, what we have achieved
since the Accord was signed, and where we are going--both with
respect to our involvement in the CALFED long-term process, and
with respect to the funding authorization in the California
Bay-Delta Enhancement and Water Security Act that the President
signed last fall.
achievements under calfed and the bay-delta accord
The Accord defined water quality standards, set up
coordinated water project management, created a program to
improve aquatic habitat by non-flow actions, and established a
long-term process for defining a plan of action to fix the
problems of the Bay-Delta. The Accord also provided an
atmosphere of greater near-term ``certainty'' in California
water management for all stakeholders, that would enable the
cooperative efforts to take root and grow. The Bay-Delta
consensus process has produced much of this certainty, with
benefits for water users, the environment, and the California
economy. To sustain this progress, and get long-term solutions
that provide lasting certainty, all CALFED agencies and
stakeholders must continue to work within the consensus-
oriented process.
State Water Quality Standards: The State Water
Resources Control Board adopted in May, 1995 a water quality
plan for standards that reflects the Accord. EPA Region 9
approved the State standards on September 26, 1995. In
contrast, efforts prior to the Accord to put water quality
standards in place for the Bay-Delta had been unsuccessful.
ClubFed members are working with stakeholders and the State to
find ways to meet these standards that will also address the
concerns of the agricultural and urban users of San Joaquin
River water. We have made a great deal of progress in this
effort and are hopeful of reaching an agreement that the State
can finalize within the time frame specified in the Accord.
More Reliable Water Allocations: Because of the
Bay-Delta process, working through its joint federal-State
Coordination Group, the Central Valley Project (CVP) water
contractors have received more reliable allocations of the
available water during the past two years. This demonstrates
that, by working together, State and federal agencies can
coordinate and more flexibly harmonize water allocations to
habitat, farm and urban users of CVP water. Previously, user
conflicts sometimes prevented contract allocations from being
provided even when water was physically available. Recognizing
that this is a greater challenge in drier years, the Interior
Department is working to develop a protocol for making these
allocations, to provide greater certainty about how the
allocation process will work.
This year's flooding experience also shows us the limits to
any human problem-solving approaches dependent on the weather.
When a single, huge rainstorm forces the massive release of
stored water to prevent an immediate catastrophe, and is then
followed directly by a prolonged, total, unseasonable drought,
no human plumbing on earth can produce enough water for all
purposes. We must note, in all humility, that we can only do
the best we can with what nature gives us to work with.
Support from the Financial Markets: Prior to the
Accord, the financial markets sounded alarms about the effect
that water policy uncertainty could have on California's
municipal credit ratings. Standard & Poor's, among those
previously concerned, found the Accord ``....represents a major
step in alleviating many of S&P's credit concerns.'' (Credit
Week Municipal, 2/27/95).
Richard Rosenberg, Chairman and CEO of BankAmerica Corp.,
reaffirmed that a consensus process was essential to this
progress, stating to the Water Education Foundation (of
Sacramento, CA) on March 30, 1995 that the Accord is ``a
critical first step towards a new era of water management in
the State.... we must deal with California water issues in
California and include all Californians.'' Similarly, the Bay
Area Economic Forum wrote on June 20 to Senator Feinstein that
major changes to the Accord ``would threaten to unravel the
Bay-Delta Agreement and jeopardize the mutual trust that has
developed among all of the different players.'' These initial
reactions from the California financial community have proven
to be both perceptive and prophetic about the most important
benefits of the Accord. CALFED and its extensive stakeholder
processes are the means by which we ``include all
Californians'' in our Bay-Delta long-term planning and near-
term decision-making. This has also enabled us to keep all
participants, governmental and private sector alike, in the
CALFED processes and at the table negotiating their
differences, instead of taking outside routes in futile
attempts to get a one-sided answer.
Category III: The Bay-Delta Accord included a
commitment to undertake non-flow ecosystem restoration
activities to improve the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
This effort is commonly referred to as ``Category III'', and
the Bay-Delta Accord estimated the costs of the non-flow
ecosystem restoration activities to be $180 million.
Category III's central purpose was to get effective non-
flow measures for ecosystem restoration into place while the
CALFED process worked out long-term solutions. In other words,
the Accord recognized the need to fund and carry out measures,
in the short term, to address the variety of non-flow related
factors that have contributed to the historical decline of the
Bay-Delta's ecological resources. To date, the water user
community has contributed almost $22 million to fund Category
III projects--including $20 million from Metropolitan Water
District, and smaller contributions from several San Francisco
Bay Area water districts. The $22 million in stakeholder
funding has leveraged funds from other sources such as the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), State and
federal agencies, and non-governmental entities, to support
$61.5 million worth of projects.
A working group of stakeholders and agency personnel
identified Category III non-flow habitat improvement projects
as appropriate for funding, and 38 have been or are being
implemented to date. These projects, such as installation of
new fish screens at critical water diversions and restoration
of spawning habitat in important upstream tributaries, will
substantially improve aquatic habitat. They will, as intended,
be even more effective in conjunction with the CALFED ecosystem
restoration activities.
I would like to provide just a couple of examples of
projects that have been undertaken with Category III funds.
Category III funds, in conjunction with several other sources,
enabled the acquisition of the 4,356-acre Valensin Ranch to
greatly expand the Cosumnes River Preserve and provide
necessary wetlands and upland habitat. These funds were also
used to install five fish screens for water diversions located
in the Suisun Marsh, one of the largest contiguous brackish
marshes in the U.S. Finally, Category III funds were used to
restore a segment of Butte Creek to natural conditions by
removing four unscreened diversion dams, enabling the
unrestricted passage of salmon.
In designing the process to identify and move forward on
Category III projects, the CALFED agencies were faced with the
challenge of moving quickly to maximize near-term Category III
progress before the start of long-term program, while working
to build a consensus on difficult issues of Category III
operation and financing. The CALFED agencies struck a pragmatic
balance by establishing a formal mechanism (through the
Ecosystem Roundtable) to provide direct stakeholder input on
near-term restoration activities, including decisions on use of
Category III funds.
Now we have the potential for a dramatic new infusion of
funding. When California voters approved Proposition 204 last
November, they made available $60 million in State funds to add
to the existing pot. New federal funds appropriated under the
authorization of the California Bay-Delta Enhancement and Water
Security Act, can be explicitly available for use in Category
III projects. The ClubFed agencies hope Congress will look
favorably on the President's FY 1998 budget request for full
funding under the Bay-Delta Act, to enable the federal
government to match California's support and commitment
reflected in its Proposition 204 funds for Category III
purposes in Fiscal Year 1998. These new State and federal
contributions add to the impetus for a wide range of
stakeholders to support Category III financially, as the Bay-
Delta Accord envisioned.
ASolid Start on Building Long-Term Bay-Delta
Solutions: As CALFED Executive Director Lester Snow's statement
describes in more detail, we have created a joint State-federal
CALFED Bay-Delta Program office, and staffed it using State and
federal resources and personnel. A broad-based Bay-Delta
Advisory Committee (BDAC) of stakeholders has been convened,
and regularly counsels the State and federal agencies on
aspects of the long-term solution. The CALFED Program has
developed three major alternatives for the long-term solution
addressing the Program's objectives--of water quality, water
supply, ecosystem restoration, and levee stability. These
alternatives are being evaluated in a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report and Statement (EIR/EIS). The
expedited schedule calls for the CALFED agencies to identify a
preferred alternative by September of this year and release the
programmatic document for public review in November.
calfed bay-delta funding request for fiscal year 1998
Last Fall, Congress passed and President Clinton signed
into law the California Bay-Delta Enhancement and Water
Security Act. This new law authorizes funding of up to $143
million per year for three years, which shall be ``in addition
to baseline funding levels . . . for currently authorized
projects and programs . . . for the purpose of Bay-Delta
ecosystem protection and restoration.'' The Bay-Delta Act
states that this funding is the ``initial federal share of the
cost of developing and implementing'' the Category III program
and the ``ecosystem restoration elements of the long-term
CALFED Bay-Delta program.''
The Bay-Delta Act also requires the Office of Management
and Budget to submit, as part of the President's Fiscal 1998
budget, ``an interagency budget crosscut'' for Fiscal Years
1993 through 1998. This crosscut is to show levels of federal
spending ``on ecosystem restoration and other purposes in the
Bay-Delta region, separately showing funding provided or
requested'' under both existing and this new Bay-Delta Act
authority.
In his Fiscal Year 1998 budget, the President requested the
full $143.3 million in new funding for Bay-Delta ecosystem
restoration and Category III purposes that was authorized by
the 1996 Bay-Delta Act. In his FY 1998 budget request, the
President also met the statutory requirement for a budget
cross-cut. The Bay-Delta cross-cut includes an estimate for the
baseline of federal spending for ``ecosystem restoration and
other purposes'' in the Bay-Delta of $70 million, a 250 percent
increase over the FY 1993 funding level of $20 million. Let me
clarify that this amount reflects federal agencies' pre-
existing spending for Bay-Delta purposes. This baseline amount
is in addition to the President's FY 1998 request for $143.3
million in new funding. In other words, the President's FY 1998
budget requests a total of $213.3 million for ecosystem
restoration and other activities in the Bay-Delta.
CALFED's FY 1998 Program
Regarding the specific actions to be funded by the CALFED
program, the Bay-Delta Act is not a great deal more explicit or
detailed than that which is set forth in the brief quote cited
above. We must therefore answer the question about the
President's FY 1998 budget, ``funding for what functions to
accomplish what goals?''
The funding authorization in the Act itself refers to the
ecosystem restoration elements of the long-term CALFED program.
While that program is still under development, and the
environmental review process on a preferred alternative is not
scheduled to be completed until the latter half of 1998, CALFED
has identified an FY 1998 program of activities that will be
beneficial to each alternative being considered for the long-
term program. Investment in these ``no regrets'' early actions
is important to maintain momentum in preparation for the
decades of work ahead on the long-term program, and will build
support and commitment for implementing the full alternative
chosen. Federal funding authorized under the Bay-Delta Act will
also provide the necessary match for the State's funding under
Proposition 204.
The CALFED FY 1998 program is part of a larger, five-year
program of activities common to all three alternatives, drafted
in consultation with stakeholders, with federal ClubFed agency
staff closely involved in development and review at every
stage. The program was framed to provide early implementation
benefits and generate information valuable for adaptive
management activities when the long-term Program is undertaken.
While many early action projects are for ecosystem restoration,
substantial activities are anticipated in each of the four
long-term program elements, including water quality, levee
vulnerability, and water supply.
Projects pursued for early implementation must: (1) have
appropriate environmental documentation; (2) have no
significant adverse cumulative impacts; and, (3) not limit the
choice of a reasonable range of alternative or affect the
selection of a preferred alternative. Under the President's FY
1998 proposal, the Secretary of the Interior will be required
to approve plans outlining how funds appropriated under the
Bay-Delta Act authorization will be spent.
The federal and non-federal funding total currently
projected for the FY 1998 CALFED program of common actions is
$260 million, of which about $143 million is proposed by the
President's FY 1998 Budget request under the Bay-Delta Act. The
majority of the $260 million is for ecosystem restoration
actions, and the remainder is for actions under the other three
program elements.
Cost-Share Agreement
We recognize that the CALFED agencies need to have a cost-
sharing agreement in place by September, 1997. A high-level
interagency group is developing an agreement which will meet
the requirements of the Bay-Delta Act and Proposition 204. This
agreement is intended to apply to interim activities (including
those in the CALFED FY 1998 program) prior to the availability
of a final programmatic environmental review document, as well
as to the long-term program.
The agreement will also include a framework of principles
for cost-sharing on the overall CALFED program. Because the
longer-term process is not yet defined and will be described in
conceptual terms, later amendments to the initial agreement are
contemplated that will be consistent with the framework of
principles and will define the long-term process as decisions
are made on it.
Defining Projects and Actions--A New Way of Doing Business
I am sure that the Subcommittee's members recognize that
this discussion has not addressed what is ordinarily a central
focus of significant funding requests--that is, a detailed
description of projects and actions for which the funding will
be used. Lester Snow's testimony addresses this question at
length.
I will simply summarize with a general description of how
CALFED will proceed. The identification of projects and
development of detailed project plans will involve the same
processes of close interaction and consultation among Lester
Snow's staff, CALFED agency staff, and stakeholders that have
brought us where we are today on the CALFED FY 1998 Program and
the CALFED long-term process. Final approval of projects will
involve the same processes of discussion and agreement among
all the CALFED agencies that have been successful to date and
that have brought all of the panelists together to this table.
We recognize that this is not ordinarily how federal
project spending gets defined. In the language I quoted above,
Congress also recognized that--in the way that the Bay-Delta
Act defined the purposes for which the funding was authorized.
Essentially, funding was authorized for actions to be named
later by the consensus-oriented CALFED process. In other words,
Congress recognized the necessity for a literally extraordinary
legislative response to what is an equally extraordinary
partnership--CALFED.
We envision that the decisions on which agencies, or
stakeholders, will undertake and pay for each activity will be
made in the same process and on the same consensus terms that
we have used to identify projects for the FY 1998 program.
There is no allocation of funds among the federal agencies to
be set before the fact. Rather, the allocations will follow the
CALFED decisions on which department or agency has the most
appropriate capability or experience to carry out a category of
activities.
The fact that, as an EPA official, I am advocating for
funding to be channeled through the actions of another federal
department says a great deal about the different way in which
we are doing business here. These are not federal or State
projects, Interior or EPA projects we envision from the common
program, although federal or State agencies will carry out many
of them. Rather, they will be products of the CALFED federal-
State partnership, which also includes stakeholders in a truly
collaborative capacity.
conclusion
Why Support The Bay-Delta Process? While we believe that
this process for deciding on action projects is what Congress
envisioned when it passed the Bay-Delta Act last Fall, we do
not ask for your support solely on that basis, or solely from
the confidence you can take from the record of the many CALFED
achievements since the Accords were signed. It is fair for you
also to ask, ``why do we believe the CALFED process will
continue to work as we move into Fiscal Year 1998 and beyond?''
Let me answer that question. First, the process is built on
a strong, core partnership with the State. We, the federal and
State signatories, jointly created that partnership in the
Framework Agreement of June, 1994. We gave it substance and
clear direction with the signing of the Accord. We continue to
cement and augment it--by our contributions in staff, resources
and work to Lester Snow's CALFED effort; by our steady and
timely progress in assembling the long-term plan; and, by our
continuing collaborative work on all the formal and informal
Teams that make CALFED go. These efforts to date provide us
with the trust and confidence that we can, and will, work
through any problem in a cooperative, consensus-oriented way.
Second, ClubFed has provided for a degree of coordination
among federal agencies that may well be unprecedented in a
natural resources program of this magnitude. I am not saying we
head off any problem before it occurs--I doubt that it is
humanly possible to do that in any large organization--but no
ClubFed agency makes major Bay-Delta decisions without
consultation with and accountability to the rest of the team.
By providing a common forum for regular interaction on these
issues, ClubFed has improved our communication and coordination
with each other, the State, and stakeholders on Bay-Delta
matters and on other, related issues beyond Bay-Delta--proving
that success can be infectious. The strong interest of the six
new members of ClubFed in joining the partnership is powerful
testimony to the effectiveness of ClubFed and the importance of
the CALFED long-term effort.
Third, the strength of the CALFED process is rooted in the
close and continuing involvement of all major stakeholder
groups. Any government agency worth its salt, at any level of
government, should have learned by now that you make the most
durable and effective decisions by bringing in the people
affected and finding out their needs, concerns, and thoughts
about different ways of solving problems. Being listened to
seriously, and being able to take a hand in guiding the overall
effort, keeps all the players at the table, and compounds their
investment in making the consensus-oriented process work. And
as that investment by all of us keeps growing, the successes we
achieve together--most recently in joining to support
Proposition 204 and the Bay-Delta Act--bring us closer to the
goal of a durable, long-term solution for the Bay-Delta.
Thank you again for your invitation to testify, and for
your consideration of support for this path-breaking
initiative.
------
Statement Presented by Director Rosemary Kamei, Santa Clara Valley
Water District
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
providing me an opportunity to submit this statement on the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, a member of the California Bay-Delta Water
Coalition, and on behalf of the Bay-Delta Advisory Council. The
coalition represents a diverse alliance of conservation
interests, urban water suppliers, agricultural water users and
business leaders working together on water policy issues in
California.
1. status of the calfed process from the urban water users' perspective
California's economy is one of the strongest in the world,
and that strength is dependent on sufficient and reliable
supplies of water. The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary supplies
water to 20 million people and supports an $800 billion economy
and job base. The San Francisco Bay Area is the No. 1 business
location in the United States, and second in the world.
Santa Clara County, the Silicon Valley, is the single most
important high-tech center in the U.S., being home to over
4,000 high-tech companies. The Silicon Valley receives one-
third or over $1 billion of the venture capital invested in the
United States annually, and employs over 230,000 people. The
high-tech and manufacturing industries are the key to the
future of the western region as America's gateway to the
Pacific Rim. These growing industries need a reliable source of
high quality water to produce the products that fuel the
economic engine. Santa Clara County is home to 1.6 million
people and it constitutes 25% of the Bay Area's total
population and economy. In an average year, half of the water
supply to Santa Clara County comes from the Bay-Delta. A
reliable and adequate supply of high quality water is of the
utmost importance to the businesses and residences of the
Silicon Valley.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an unprecedented
cooperative effort among federal, state and local agencies to
restore the Bay-Delta. The Program is developing a long-term
solution that equitably addresses water problems in four key
and inter-related areas: water supply reliability, water
quality, ecosystem health, and levee system vulnerability. As a
member of the urban water users community and an active
participant of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, I am pleased with
the progress of the Program and the degree to which the Program
has promoted an open, consensus-building process in developing
a long-term solution for the problems facing the Bay-Delta. The
Program is on a very ambitious schedule but I think it is
important for CALFED to continue with the momentum that has
been generated. From the urban perspective, the CALFED process
is on track to increase water supply reliability. This is
absolutely critical to maintaining the quality of life not just
in my area but throughout the state.
2. the role that the bdac is playing in the development of a long-term
plan for the management of bay-delta resources
The Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC) is a federally-
chartered stakeholder group which provides policy guidance to
CALFED in its development of the long-term Bay-Delta solution.
It is a 32-member council consisting of representatives from
urban, agricultural, environmental, business, and fishing
interests. It is the formal forum for stakeholders to discuss
issues, understand the concerns from all of the interests that
will be affected by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and provide
recommendations to CALFED in developing balanced alternatives
for addressing water problems in the Bay-Delta.
Since its creation from May 1995, BDAC has been engaged in
providing input on the elements of the CALFED solution
including: water use efficiency, water quality, storage and
conveyance, levee stability, and the nexus between ecosystem
restoration and flood management. There are also four BDAC sub-
groups set up to address in more detail, policy issues related
to program elements and other necessary and companion
components of the CALFED package such as financing and
assurances. These BDAC workgroups are also comprised of
balanced representation from urban, agricultural,
environmental, and business interests. In addition, BDAC has
appointed a subcommittee, the Ecosystem Roundtable, to provide
advice on near-term ecosystem restoration efforts.
3. the need for the funding currently requested in the president's
budget
Although the CALFED program requires all parts of the long-
term solution to move forward together, the CALFED agencies and
stakeholder interests have recognized an immediate need to
begin implementation of the ecosystem restoration element.
Because the ecosystem restoration element is designed to serve
as the foundation for all of the other program elements,
immediate restoration action is necessary to achieve long-term
water supply reliability and water quality benefits. There are
ecosystem restoration projects and programs and water quality
actions to improve ecosystem quality that can be undertaken now
and will result in immediate ecological benefit. There are
other projects that need to go forward now because of the
considerable lead time necessary to produce species and habitat
benefits.
The California Bay-Delta Water Coalition, including Santa
Clara Valley Water District, strongly supports the
Administration's budget request for funding the interim CALFED
ecosystem restoration program. The Coalition believes it is
critical that all of the parties to this process--federal,
state, local and stakeholder interests--contribute financially
to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and that full funding in
support of the Administration's ecosystem restoration funding
request is a crucial step in this regard.
4. our assessment regarding the process by which funds--both federal
and non-federal--will be allocated among competing potential projects
In order to help prioritize and allocate federal and non-
federal funds among similar but competing needs, CALFED
agencies have created a Restoration Coordination Program to
receive stakeholder input such as those from the Ecosystem
Roundtable. The Ecosystem Roundtable is an advisory group
appointed under the Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA) and
is a sub-committee reporting to the Bay-Delta Advisory Council
(BDAC). The Ecosystem Roundtable is a balanced group
representing the various interests involved in Bay-Delta issues
and its mission is to advise CALFED on near-term ecosystem
restoration project selection and coordination with other
ongoing programs such as the CVPIA.
The project selection and funding prioritization process is
being performed in a manner that fosters cooperative planning
and implementation with all the federal, state, and local
agencies and stakeholders. Prioritization is based on a
rigorous evaluation of environmental needs, biological
benefits, technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, potential
environmental and third-party impacts, and consistency with
CALFED goals for water quality, levee reliability, water use
efficiency and water supply reliability. I believe that this
Ecosystem Roundtable process is the most effective method for
coordinating overlapping agency programs and for bringing in
meaningful stakeholder involvement and buy-in.
------
Statement of Leslie Friedman Johnson, Director of Agency Relations, The
Nature Conservancy, California Regional Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
providing me an opportunity to submit this statement regarding
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program on behalf of The Nature
Conservancy (``Conservancy ''). The Conservancy is an
international, non-profit land conservation organization
dedicated to the long-term preservation of biological
diversity. \1\ The premise that underlies our work is that in
order to safeguard imperiled species, we must protect and often
restore their habitats. The Conservancy has been actively
implementing ecosystem conservation and restoration projects at
sites throughout the Bay-Delta watershed for nearly 20 years.
Because we share CALFED's goal of restoring Bay-Delta ecosystem
health, the Conservancy has been actively participating in the
CALFED process since the Bay-Delta Accord was signed. We are
also an active participant in the California Bay-Delta Water
Coalition, and have signed on to the Coalition testimony
submitted to you today under separate cover. For my individual
statement I will focus on the specific questions you have asked
me to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more than 45 years The Nature Conservancy has implemented
our mission by focusing on local, on-the-ground conservation, utilizing
the best available science, market forces, and partnerships with people
and groups across the political spectrum. We currently have
conservation programs in all 50 states and 17 other nations. The
Conservancy has more than 900,000 individual members and over 1,385
corporate sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary
As authorized in October 1996 by P.L. 104-333, Title XI,
the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water
Security Act, the Administration has included $143.3 million
for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the Bureau of Reclamation's
FY'98 budget request. The Nature Conservancy strongly supports
this funding level request.
The San Francisco Bay-Delta and its watershed is a 500-
square-mile region supporting an immense diversity and richness
of aquatic and terrestrial species and habitats as well as
substantial commercial and sport fisheries, several of which
are on the verge of extinction. In addition, the estuary and
its watershed support considerable wetland habitat for
waterfowl that provides a large recreational hunting base.
Simultaneously, the Bay-Delta Estuary serves as the primary
water supply conveyance system for a massive agricultural
economy and two-thirds of California's population. The conflict
between these competing uses has produced significant
environmental problems, which in turn have stalled efforts to
improve water supply reliability for all interested parties.
Similarly, the future viability of commercial and sport fishing
on the West Coast is dependent upon solving these complex
ecological problems.
The Bay-Delta ecosystem also has important implications for
other Western states. For example, this region provides
critical nesting and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl
whose seasonal migrations along the Pacific Flyway reach from
northern Alaska to the tip of South America. Moreover, a
restored salmon fishery in California could benefit fisheries
along much of the Pacific Coast and decrease the likelihood of
additional listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
status of the calfed process from the environmental organizations'
perspective
First, I must point out that there is no single
environmental perspective. The environmental community is made
up of a diversity of organizations spanning the spectrum from
small, local grass-roots groups to large, international
corporations. Each of these groups has a slightly different
focus ranging from comprehensive ecosystem restoration to local
watershed projects to water conservation to reduction of point-
source pollution. The CALFED-program, likewise, is actually
multiple programs: interim, long-term, ecosystem restoration,
water supply reliability, water quality and levee system
vulnerability. As a result there exists an enormous range of
perspectives depending on which group one polls regarding which
specific program area.
Environmental and conservation organizations have
demonstrated unprecedented commitment to the CALFED process. In
the ten years I have been working on conservation issues in
California I have never before seen anything approaching the
level of environmental and conservation group involvement
witnessed in the CALFED arena. To the best of my knowledge,
every CALFED forum--including public workshops, the Bay Delta
Advisory Council (BDAC), the Ecosystem Roundtable, BDAC work
groups on finance, assurances, water quality, water supply
reliability, and ecosystem restoration--is attended by at least
one and often multiple representatives of the environmental
community. In addition, a broad diversity of conservation and
environmental interests has come together as the Environmental
Water Caucus (EWC), a forum for sharing information and
coordinating input to the CALFED Bay-Delta program. EWC, in
turn, has established multiple work groups to focus on various
CALFED program elements. Collectively this is a remarkable
response from a community that is chronically understaffed and
under- or un-funded.
Environmental and conservation groups are at the table
because we believe it will take a comprehensive program on the
scale of that undertaken by CALFED to effectively address the
complex problems manifest in the Bay-Delta. The environmental
community is clearly as fully engaged as any other interest
group in developing a rational, consensus-based solution to
Bay-Delta problems. It is also important to note that a
commitment to the process does not imply a blanket endorsement
of CALFED recommendations.
need for the funding level in the administration's fy'98 budget:
immediate spending on ecosystem restoration is a priority for all
california
Although the CALFED program requires all parts of a long-
term solution to move forward together, agencies and
stakeholder interests have recognized the need to begin
implementation of ecosystem restoration immediately. We believe
this is important for several reasons. First, the ecosystem
restoration element of the CALFED program is the foundation for
all of the other program elements. With so many species in
decline or on the brink of extinction, restoration of ecosystem
health is widely recognized to be necessary to achieve long-
term water supply reliability. Thus, while the CALFED agencies
are developing several alternative long-term solutions, an
aggressive ecosystem restoration program, by the agreement of
all parties, will be common to all of the alternatives.
Second, commitment of significant funding--on the order of
the current federal funding request--is a necessary
precondition to stimulate development of ecosystem restoration
projects on a scale sufficient to achieve restoration of
ecosystem health. Uncertainty about the availability of funding
has had a stifling effect on development of large-scale
restoration projects. In an era of decreasing funding, agencies
and private organizations alike have been reluctant to invest
the effort or resources necessary to develop large-scale
projects because they have lacked confidence that funding would
be available to carry them out.
Federal funds will be used in conjunction with existing
Proposition 204, Central Valley Project Improvement Act and
other restoration program funds to support an array of urgently
needed ecological improvements including, but not limited to:
*Restoration of tidal, shallow water, riparian, instream,
wetland, and other habitats;
*Improved fish protection and management;
*Protection and enhancement of existing habitat;
*Expanded wetlands protection;
*Improved ecosystem water quality to support aquatic
resources;
*Improved habitat management;
*Improved management of introduced species;
*Identification and addressing of other limiting factors
that have impaired ecosystem recovery.
I would like to elaborate a bit by describing a few types
of activity for which funding is urgently needed:
Emergency measures to prevent additional listings and/or
extinction. A clear, and widely-supported priority for
immediate funding is activity that immediately, directly and
tangibly improves conditions for species approaching or on the
brink of extinction. Activities that may meet this definition
include screening unscreened water diversions, improving fish
passage, and restoring habitat for listed and candidate
species.
Experimental and demonstration projects. There are several
highly-degraded habitat types central to the CALFED Ecosystem
Restoration Common Program for which restoration technologies
are still relatively unproved (e.g. Delta wetlands). Immediate
development of large-scale experimental and demonstration
restoration projects is a necessary step in the direction of
restored ecosystem health.
Large-scale habitat restoration. Preliminary drafts of the
CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program plan have indicated a need
to acquire, protect and/or restore large amounts of habitat.
Again, dependability of funding is critical to development of a
successful program. Without secure funding (or at least good
prospects), agencies and private entities are much less likely
to pursue such projects.
The CALFED process has significantly advanced the
collective vision of ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta
watershed; the requested federal funding will provide the means
to begin seriously implementing that vision.
the calfed restoration coordination program: a systematic, consensus-
based approach to project funding
As noted above, the Administration has included $143.3
million for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the Bureau of
Reclamation's FY'98 budget request. As implementation occurs,
it is anticipated that funds will also be transferred to other
federal agencies participating in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports this ``one-stop''
federal line item as an efficient and streamlined approach to
funding the interim CALFED ecosystem restoration program.
I am going to leave it to the other panelists to describe
the CALFED Restoration Coordination Program and the Ecosystem
Roundtable, and will limit my comments to addressing how I
believe this approach improves upon the status quo.
As mentioned above, the Conservancy has been implementing
conservation and restoration projects in the Bay-Delta
watershed for nearly 20 years. Over that period, developments
in the field of conservation biology have led us and others to
recognize that conservation and restoration of ecosystems,
including the natural processes that sustain them, is more
effective and sustainable than species by species conservation
efforts. Ecosystem restoration of the magnitude required to
achieve ecosystem ``health'' needs to be conducted on a large
scale, and in a highly-coordinated fashion.
To date, there has been no coordinating framework to guide
the actions of various state, federal, local and private
interests. Due to limited resources, differing agendas and lack
of coordination, these interests have historically pursued
projects of relatively small scale in a manner that is
fragmented, reactive, and often focused on narrow objectives
(e.g. habitat acquisition for a single species without respect
to ecosystem context or natural process function). While state,
federal and local entities have indeed cooperated on many
important and worthwhile projects, and are increasingly
developing projects on an ecosystem scale, the various
priorities, decision-making processes and institutional
constraints unique to each agency or group often make
cooperative efforts cumbersome.
The CALFED Restoration Coordination Program promises to be
a vast improvement over traditional ecosystem funding programs
in that CALFED, with input from stakeholders on the Ecosystem
Roundtable, has developed a process to coordinate not only the
expenditure of the requested federal funds, but also CVPIA
Restoration Fund, Proposition 204 and other funding sources. We
strongly support CALFED's role in coordinating this effort.
Fragmenting the federal appropriation among the various federal
agencies or earmarking of specific projects would undermine the
coordination already underway.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee to describe The Nature Conservancy's support of
the CALFED Bay-Delta program and the Administration's FY'98
funding request. As we have described in greater detail above,
ecosystem restoration is a necessary foundation for other
elements of the CALFED program, and is critical to the long-
term environmental and economic health of the West and the
United States as a whole. The requested federal funding is
urgently needed to move these ecosystem restoration efforts
forward.
------
Statement of California Bay-Delta Water Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
providing us an opportunity to submit this statement regarding
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program on behalf of the California Bay-
Delta Water Coalition. The coalition represents a diverse
alliance of conservation interests, urban water suppliers,
agricultural water users and business leaders working together
on water policy issues in California. (Exhibit A is a list of
Coalition participants.) The Coalition is currently focused on
obtaining sufficient funds to ensure the success of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program. It is these funding issues that are the
focus of the Coalition's testimony today.
summary
As authorized in October 1996 by P.L. 104-333, Title XI,
the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water
Security Act (``Bay-Delta Act''), the Administration has
included $143.3 million in the Bureau of Reclamation's FY '98
budget request for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The California
Bay-Delta Water Coalition strongly supports this funding level
request.
California's economy is one of the strongest in the world,
and that strength is dependent on sufficient and reliable
supplies of water. Two-thirds of California's population is
dependent on water from the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, a
500-square-mile region supporting an immense diversity and
richness of aquatic and terrestrial species and habitats as
well as substantial commercial and sport fisheries, several of
which are on the verge of extinction. In addition, the estuary
and its watershed support considerable acreage of managed
wetland habitat for waterfowl that provides a large
recreational hunting base. Simultaneously, the Bay-Delta
Estuary serves as the primary water supply conveyance system
for a massive agricultural economy and millions of municipal
and industrial consumers. The conflict between these competing
uses has produced significant environmental problems, which
have in turn stalled efforts to improve water supply
reliability for all interested parties. Thus, restoration of
the ecological health of the Bay-Delta Estuary and its
watershed is the foundation of all efforts to improve water
quality and supply reliability. Similarly, the future viability
of commercial and sport fishing on the West Coast is dependent
upon solving these complex ecological problems.
The Estuary and its watershed also have important
implications for other Western states. For example, this region
provides critical nesting and wintering habitat for migratory
waterfowl whose seasonal migrations along the Pacific Flyway
reach from northern Alaska to the tip of South America.
Moreover, a restored salmon fishery in California could benefit
fisheries along much of the Pacific Coast and decrease the
likelihood of additional listings under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). It must also be recognized that water systems in the
Western U.S. are highly inter-related. For example, because
Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration will help bring long-term
stability and security to California's statewide water system,
the Administration's funding request is of substantial
importance to other Colorado River Basin states and interests
as well as the Republic of Mexico.
the calfed bay delta program is the culmination of years of effort
The problems facing the Bay-Delta Estuary and its watershed
have proven intractable for many years, due not only to the
conflicts in the system, but also to the vast array of
overlapping and often conflicting mandates of various federal
and state agencies. In an historic effort to end the impasse,
the federal government and the state of California have entered
into a joint venture to craft a long-term Bay-Delta solution
that equitably addresses water problems in four key and inter-
related areas: water supply reliability, water quality,
ecosystem health, and levee system vulnerability. This venture
includes all of the necessary federal and state agencies
operating under a framework agreement and is referred to as
``the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.''
A joint Bay-Delta program staff has been put into place and
has been given responsibility for developing the programmatic
solutions. This effort has been underway for approximately 18
months. A central tenet of the program is the necessity for,
and reliance upon, substantial and substantive input from
stakeholders and other members of the general public. The Bay-
Delta Program staff have established an extensive system of
workshops and technical teams for developing concepts and
solutions with the aid of those who work most closely with the
systems at issue. Conservation groups, fishermen, urban and
agricultural water users, waterfowl associations, the business
community and others are actively involved in the solutions
process along with the CALFED agencies and the Bay-Delta
Program staff.
immediate spending on ecosystem restoration is a priority for all
concerned
Although the CALFED program requires all parts of the long-
term solution to move forward together, the CALFED agencies and
stakeholder interests have recognized an immediate need to
begin implementation of the ecosystem restoration element. The
California Bay-Delta Water Coalition strongly endorses this
policy for several reasons.
First, the ecosystem restoration element of the CALFED
program is designed to serve as the foundation for all of the
other program elements, because immediate restoration of the
ecosystem is necessary to achieve long-term water supply
reliability and water quality benefits.
Thus, while the CALFED agencies are developing several
alternative long-term solutions, an aggressive ecosystem
restoration program will be common to all of the alternatives.
Second, the federal funds will be used to fund an array of
projects and programs that can be undertaken now and will
result in immediate ecological benefit. Other projects need to
go forward now due to the considerable lead time necessary to
produce species and habitat benefits. Given that the ecological
systems are complex, an adaptive management approach--one that
allows for modification over time in response to new
information--is essential.
Thus, there is a strong interest among all parties in
providing early support for those restoration activities that
are either (1) most likely to provide substantial ecological
benefits or (2) will supply information that will guide future
management and restoration activities. It is also widely
accepted that restoration actions will in most cases require
substantially greater time to result in either tangible
benefits or meaningful new information than other elements of
the CALFED program.
california bay-delta water coalition: a key role for stakeholders
In recognition of the urgent need to lay this all important
foundation, the Coalition came together during the summer of
1996 to develop and support an historic state bond measure,
Proposition 204, the ``Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act
of 1996.'' Proposition 204 is a $995 million general obligation
water bond containing approximately $600 million for Bay-Delta
ecosystem restoration efforts. Of this, $60 million is
immediately available for ecosystem restoration activities as
part of a program referred to as ``Category III,'' and $93
million is immediately available to fund the state's share of
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) implementation
costs. (Several other sections of the measure also provide
immediate funding for related restoration efforts.) Proposition
204 also created a $390 million fund as the State's initial
contribution to the final CALFED ecosystem restoration program.
This fund will not be available until the entire CALFED program
has been finalized, some time within the next two years. The
measure passed with 63% voter approval, a clear indication of
very high levels of state support for improvement of the Bay-
Delta Estuary and its watershed and improvements to the water
supply system.
The Coalition was also instrumental in building support for
H.R. 4126, the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement
and Water Security Act (the ``Bay-Delta Act''), a new
authorization of matching federal funds to support the initial
ecosystem restoration elements of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
H.R. 4126 was enacted as Title XI of P.L. 104-333, the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act. An unprecedented level
of bipartisan support (48 members of the California delegation
co-sponsored the measure), as well as the support of the
Clinton and Wilson Administrations, led to quick action in the
104th Congress. The Bay-Delta Act, drafted with Proposition 204
in mind, authorizes the ``initial'' federal share of both
immediate Category III funding and the more comprehensive Bay-
Delta ecosystem element. These federal funds will be used in
conjunction with existing CVPIA and other restoration programs
to support an array of urgently needed ecological improvements
including, but not limited to:
*Restoration of tidal, shallow water, riparian, instream,
wetland, and other habitats;
*Improved fish protection and management;
*Protection and enhancement of existing habitat;
*Expanded wetlands protection program;
*Improved ecosystem water quality to support aquatic
resources;
*Improved habitat management;
*Improved management of introduced species;
*Identification and addressing of other limiting factors
that have impaired ecosystem recovery.
doi fy '98 budget request is appropriate and necessary
Consistent with the Bay-Delta Act, the Administration
included $143.3 million as the first installment of the federal
funds for ecosystem restoration activities being developed by
the CALFED agencies for FY 1998. In addition, the
Administration has committed to funding the remaining amounts,
$143.3 million in each of FY '99 and FY '00. The budget
authority of $143.3 million is included within the Bureau of
Reclamation budget. As implementation occurs, it is anticipated
that funds will also be transferred to other federal agencies
participating in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Coalition
strongly supports this ``one-stop'' federal line item as an
efficient and streamlined approach to funding the interim
CALFED ecosystem restoration program.
The CALFED Bay-Delta program is unique. A major initiative
to coordinate the legal mandates and spending of at least seven
federal agencies, its decisions will affect a huge watershed
and millions of water customers. It is also a partnership with
a number of state agencies and coordinates closely with an
independent stakeholder funding program. The Coalition strongly
supports CALFED's role in such planning and spending efforts,
as it is the only means to assure programmatic results that
will satisfy all interests. Fragmenting the federal
appropriation among the various federal agencies would
undermine this critical goal and weaken the coordination
already underway.
the ecosystem roundtable process provides for critical stakeholder
input
In order to establish near-term spending priorities for
ecosystem activities and to coordinate state, federal, and
associated expenditures, the CALFED agencies have created a
Restoration Coordination Program which receives stakeholder
input from the Ecosystem Roundtable. The Ecosystem Roundtable
is a balanced group representing the various interests involved
in Bay-Delta issues and its mission is to help CALFED with
near-term project selection for Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration
and coordination with other ongoing programs such as the CVPIA.
The Roundtable was appointed under the Federal Advisory
Committees Act (FACA) and the state equivalent to this statute.
The CALFED agencies and the Ecosystem Roundtable are using
an objective, scientifically-based process to identify near-
term priorities and fund actions to address those priorities.
This process was developed based on the past experiences in
administering the Category III program and the CVPIA
Restoration Fund, and features extensive coordination with the
CVPIA. It is a process that allows flexibility to respond to
changing circumstances, to address local interests, and to
learn from previous restoration actions.
Both Proposition 204 and the Bay-Delta Act anticipate that
the Ecosystem Roundtable structure will serve as the primary
decision forum for funds made available under these
authorities, until a more permanent entity is developed by
CALFED to take on this role.
The Coalition strongly supports the Ecosystem Roundtable
process, not only as a rational and logical method of
coordinating overlapping agency programs and spending, but as
the most effective method for bringing meaningful stakeholder
involvement--and buy-in--to a problem that has vexed California
and many other western states for decades.
state & local cost-sharing has already been committed
The Coalition supports the use of matching funds for both
interim and long-term ecosystem restoration efforts. As part of
the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, the stakeholders, together with the
state and federal signatories, committed to funding a variety
of restoration projects. Water users jump-started these efforts
by providing an initial $22 million as seed money for immediate
implementation of such projects (commonly called Category III).
Another $10 million will he contributed this year. These funds
have already been matched by approximately $7 million in local
and private cost-share funds and are over and above user
contributions to other on-going Bay-Delta restoration programs,
including nearly $120 million contributed to the CVPIA
Restoration Fund since 1992. In addition, as discussed in some
detail above, the State of California is now committed to
providing approximately $600 million through Proposition 204
for Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration purposes. Of this amount,
more than $200 million is available immediately--prior to the
completion of CALFED's long-term plan--as are all associated
local, user, and stakeholder-contributed funds.
Consistent with these state and stakeholder commitments,
Congress authorized, and the President has requested, funding
to support the federal share of the Category III program and
related restoration efforts in recognition of the significance
of these immediate needs to the overall success of the CALFED
Bay-Delta program. The Coalition believes it is critical that
all of the parties to this process--federal, state, local and
stakeholder interests--contribute financially to the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program, and that full funding in support of the
Administration's ecosystem restoration funding request is a
crucial step in this regard.
Substantial state and stakeholder funds are already
committed for the federal 1998 fiscal year regardless of
whether matching federal funds are appropriated for that
period. Thus, a formal cost-sharing agreement is not necessary
to ensure that any federal appropriation is matched in FY '98.
Nevertheless, the Coalition recognizes the general policy of
the federal agencies to provide funding pursuant to cost-
sharing agreements. Therefore, the Coalition supports the
execution of an interim cost-sharing agreement for FY 1998 that
facilitates the expenditure of all funds appropriated for the
ecosystem restoration element of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
for the FY 1998 funding cycle.
conclusion
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is bringing state, federal,
local and stakeholder interests together in an open and public
process to make joint decisions about how to implement
ecosystem restoration programs and monitor progress in order to
ensure overall success. The CALFED Program has broad
responsibility to plan and coordinate a comprehensive, long-
term solution to restore the estuary and improve the
reliability and quality of Bay-Delta water supplies. It is
vital that restoration activities begin now.
Species throughout the Bay-Delta watershed continue to face
a host of problems in some cases so severe that they remain
candidates for listing under the ESA. Recovery efforts cannot
begin without adequate funding. Many projects and programs have
already been planned and are ready for implementation. Funding
commitments are needed to move restoration activities forward.
Restoring California's Bay-Delta ecosystem is critical to
the long-term environmental and economic health of the West and
the United States as a whole. Federal support to match
California's commitment to restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem
will help safeguard this national treasure for future
generations and serve as a model for other regions in the area
of ecosystem protection and restoration.
------
Exhibit A
California Bay-Delta Water Coalition Participants:
Alameda County Water District
Association of California Water Agencies
California Urban Water Agencies
California Waterfowl Association
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Central Coast Water Authority
Central Valley Project Water Association
Coachella Valley Water District
Contra Costa Water District
East Bay Municipal Utilities District
Environmental Defense Fund
Friant Water Users Authority
Kern County Water Agency
Long Beach Water Department
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Modesto Irrigation District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Natural Heritage Institute
Northern California Water Association
San Diego County Water Authority
San Francisco City and County Water Department
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water
Authority
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Stockton East Water District
The Nature Conservancy
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
Turlock Irrigation District
West Basin Municipal Water District
Westlands Water District
------
Testimony of Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO, Bay Area Council
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power Resources, I am Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO of
the Bay Area Council, a business-sponsored, CEO-led
organization representing major employers throughout the nine-
county Bay Area region of Northern California. The Bay Area
Council, established more than 50 years ago, works to develop
progressive regional public policies that promotes economic
prosperity and environmental quality. The Bay Area Council is
rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit with great respect for
public leadership, such as you provide for the nation on a
daily basis. Additionally, I serve as Vice-Chair of the Bay
Delta Advisory Council which provides on-going advice to the
CALFED Bay Delta Program. I am pleased to appear before you
today to provide input from the Bay Area business community as
well as a statewide business perspective with regard to the
CALFED process.
Before I begin, I would like to provide one piece of
historical context. In the late 1970's and early 1980's I
chaired a group called the Committee for Water Policy
Consensus, based in Contra Costa County, where I was then an
elected Supervisor. One of the key concepts that I and my
colleagues advocated was the notion that California should have
``policy before plumbing.'' We strongly believed that before
major projects were undertaken, comprehensive technical impact
analyses should be carried out and policy debates undertaken,
regarding the allocation or reallocation of our State's finite
water resources in order to ensure the ultimate successful
operation of the Federal and State water systems. At that time,
the water community in general, and many of the constituencies
involved, were concerned that such discussions would delay
critically needed projects supported in various interest
groups. However, in the absence of such comprehensive analyses
and appropriate policies, agreements between parties on
significant programs and projects were not forthcoming,
resulting in political gridlock. Consequently, no major
activities to either improve the ecosystem quality or improve
water supply reliability were reached until the historic Bay
Delta Accord of 1994.
Thus, I and many others are heartened by the fact that the
CALFED process does in fact represent an effort to put ``policy
before plumbing.'' This is a major accomplishment, and one that
is clearly bearing fruit.
From a business perspective, the CALFED process represents
a critical component of California's infrastructure development
for the 21st century. Like the highway system, whether it be
roads or information, and the power grid, California's water
supply infrastructure contributes to our continuing prosperity
and helps ensure that the 7th largest economy in the world will
continue to make its substantial contribution to the overall
health of our national economy. As we all know, water is
largely taken for granted except during the time of drought or
flood. But the ramifications of not guaranteeing that the Bay
Delta system continues to function in the future as both
ecosystem and water supply hub are severe for California and
the United States as a whole.
From the rugged Sierra foothills, to the fields of the
Central Valley, to the Los Angels basin, to San Diego, and back
to the Silicon Valley, a secure, reliable supply of high
quality water cannot by overvalued. We in the business
community regard the CALFED process as the only immediate
opportunity to achieve a secure, reliable, and quality water
supply for the jobs and the economy. We are committed to
helping to resolve the water disputes that confront us, and we
are committed to the CALFED effort as the venue to do so. Time
is of the essence and we cannot let the CALFED process be
derailed at the critical juncture.
The business community has not always been centrally
involved in the water debate. In the past few years, however,
the business community has begun to play a much more key role
in the water policy debates in the state and we will continue
to do so. As Mr. Perciasepe mentioned in his remarks, corporate
CEO's across the state, major financial institutions such as
Standard & Poor's, and organizations such as the Bay Area
Council care deeply about the fate of California's water
resource and understand the need to resolve the policy debates
now. It is also important to note that the ``business
community'' is not only comprised of the board rooms and
shareholders; it is, ultimately, the employees and their
families as well. Indeed, it is the people of California.
Future economic prosperity in California, which is an
economic engine for the nation, and is dependent upon the water
supply from the Delta. Contributing to that quality of life,
and the ecological well being of the Bay-Delta system, must be
restored in order to ensure stability in that supply.
Environmental vitality, along with our economic vitality
combine to make California unique and uniquely attractive to
business and employees.
If we lose either our water supply reliability or our
environmental quality, businesses will be less likely to stay,
expand or locate here. Failure to follow through on the CALFED
process will impair economic progress for the nation as well as
California.
I am confident that the CALFED process will succeed in
meeting these twin demands of water supply reliability for
economic vitality and ecosystem restoration for environmental
quality. And I am honored to serve as Vice-Chair of the Bay-
Delta Advisory Council, contributing to this important process.
The role of the Bay-Delta Advisory Council is to provide
advice to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program regarding its
development of alternative comprehensive solutions to
environmental and water management problems associated with the
Bay-Delta system. We are also to provide policy advice on
issues not necessarily included as a project in a solution
alternative but that will need to be resolved before
implementation can succeed, such as assurances that the program
will be implemented tomorrow as it is designed today, and so
on.
The CALFED process has listened to the advice of the BDAC,
has responded and incorporated appropriate suggestions for
improvement appropriately and is successfully meeting an
extremely tight time line. All to its great credit. I look
forward to an even more pronounced BDAC role as the
alternatives are refined further.
With respect to the need for the funding currently
requested in the President's budget, I cannot stress enough
that the need is real, it is needed in FY '98, and it is
imperative that it be forthcoming to evidence the federal
government's acknowledgment that California's economic engine,
if slowed or stopped, has an impact on the nation's economic
well being. Furthermore, there is a federal responsibility to
contribute to the ecosystem restoration effort both because the
Delta is an ecological treasure of international significance
and a wintering location for waterfowl along the Pacific
Flyway, for which the United States has some treaty
obligations.
Finally, with regard to the Ecosystem Roundtable process
for recommending disbursements of state and federal funds for
ecosystem restoration to the CALFED agencies, I am very
comfortable that it is a workable, fair and practical process.
It is open, has stakeholder involvement, and agency
participation. It is developing criteria for early
implementation project selection and will recommend priorities
for near-term ecosystem restoration actions to the CALFED
agencies.
Ultimately, the CALFED process has been and continues to be
a success worthy of your Committee's support. It is an example
of agency coordination, stakeholder participation and state and
federal cooperation that is almost unprecedented. Finally, the
most important fact to remember about CALFED is that it's
working. In business, success speaks for itself.
------
Statement of Richard K. Golb, Executive Director, Northern California
Water Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Richard Golb, I am the Executive Director of the Northern
California Water Association (NCWA). NCWA is a non-profit
organization that represents 51 agricultural water suppliers
that collectively irrigate 750,000 acres of farmland in the
Sacramento Valley.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the status of
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program from the perspective of
California's agricultural water users, as well as on the role
of the Ecosystem Roundtable, and the importance of the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program.
California's agricultural water interests, including NCWA,
have worked diligently to resolve the chronic water supply and
environmental problems that have plagued the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). NCWA
participated in the development of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord,
the development of California ballot Proposition 204, and the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. NCWA's Chairman Tib Belza, and Vice-
Chairman Don Bransford, both serve on the Bay-Delta Advisory
Council, along with environmental, urban, business and other
agricultural interests from throughout California. I also serve
on the CALFED Ecosystem Roundtable.
the status of calfed bay-delta program--an agricultural perspective
California's agricultural water interests support the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and its objective, which is to develop
and implement a plan to restore water supplies for California's
cities, businesses and farms, and to restore fish and wildlife
habitat in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. We also support the
California Bay-Delta Water Coalition, and the Coalition's
statement in support for full fiscal year 1998 federal funds
for CALFED's short-term and long-term goals. Our support for
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is consistent with Governor Pete
Wilson's 1992 water policy that advanced the principle that all
of California's interests must move forward together--and that
individual interests can not move ahead of the others.
Following this important theme, CALFED adopted a set of six
solution principles that agricultural interests, like NCWA,
strongly support. The principles are intended to guide CALFED's
selection of a final solution to ensure it is equitable to all
interests, that it does not result in redirected impacts to
other regions or interests, and that it is a durable plan that
will address California's economic and environmental needs. We
believe the success of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is
imperative to ensure the long-term viability of California's
agricultural economy.
the ecosystem restoration roundtable
The Ecosystem Roundtable is a 19-member subcommittee of the
Bay-Delta Advisory Council. The Roundtable, of which I am a
member, is a representative work group comprised of
California's environmental, agricultural, urban, fishing,
conservation and power interests. Our mission is to assist
CALFED staff in the evaluation of a proposed three to five year
workplan that will identify environmental restoration needs and
specific projects to address these needs. The Roundtable will
review and recommend selected projects to the Bay-Delta
Advisory Council for funding, and importantly, the Roundtable
will also attempt to coordinate existing state and federal
restoration programs in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Our current
goal is to provide recommendations on projects to the Bay-Delta
Advisory Council this summer.
The Ecosystem Roundtable, thus far, is an accountable and
balanced process. Clearly established scientific criteria have
been adopted to ensure the merit of restoration projects that
may be eligible for funding consideration, and CALFED's
Solution Principles ensure that affected landowners are
involved in project development
These restoration projects and programs will help CALFED
meet two important goals. First, they will improve fish and
wildlife habitat in the Bay-Delta's fragile ecosystem. Second,
in fulfilling this goal, the program will provide long-term
water supply certainty for California's agricultural and
business communities.
the president's fiscal year 1998 budget request
Congress, in 1996, passed the California Bay-Delta
Enhancement and Water Security Act, authorizing $430 million
for environmental restoration activities in the Bay-Delta.
Signed by President Clinton, and combined with California
voters support for Proposition 204, this law authorized $143
million for each of the fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The
first installment, President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 budget
request of $143 million, is included in the Department of
Interior's budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. The
President's budget documents commit to requesting the
additional authorized $143 million installments in fiscal years
1999 and 2000. The full appropriation of $430 million is
critical to ensure that CALFED successfully addresses
California's water supply and environmental problems.
Congressional support for the President's request for $143
million will allow CALFED to begin work on important long-term
restoration projects that will provide significant water supply
reliability benefits for California's agricultural and urban
needs. The funding also will ensure that restoration projects
that currently have state and federal approval, and a local
cost-share, will not be delayed due to lack of federal support
or funds. For example, state and federal agencies have recently
encouraged water users on the San Joaquin and Sacramento
rivers, and in the Delta, to protect juvenile salmon by
installing fish screens on their diversions. Many agricultural
water suppliers have initiated these projects and are now in
the design stages with construction possible this summer and
next year, provided federal funds are available through the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Overall, these projects, as well as other fish passage
projects on tributary streams, such as construction of fish
ladders, will immediately benefit species of concern, including
the federally listed winter-run Chinook salmon, as well as the
spring-run Chinook salmon. At the same time, this funding
ensures greater certainty for irrigation supplies to area
farmers, and increases the opportunities, under appropriate
circumstances, for water transfers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony
before the Subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have at this time.
------
Testimony of Mr. W. Ashley Payne, Ashley Payne Farms
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Ashley
Payne. I am a farmer and I reside in Yolo County, California.
My family farms about 8,000 acres in Yolo and Sutter Counties,
and we grow primarily rice, tomatoes, wheat, safflower, corn
and alfalfa.
Iappreciate the opportunity to testify today before your
subcommittee, particularly from the perspective of a landowner
who has property in the CALFED habitat acquisitions target
area. I want to stress from the outset that my experience in
dealing with the federal government on a major land acquisition
in the Delta may be unique. My involvement with the federal
land acquisition process has been with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Corps' efforts to acquire Little Holland
Tract, an island in the delta that my brother, William, and I
own. This is not necessarily the experience that other
landowners, who plan to participate in the CALFED land
acquisition process, will have. But it does provide, I believe,
some lessons from which the CALFED land acquisition program can
benefit.
First, a little background on the property in question.
Little Holland Tract is a 1,630 acre island that borders the
Sacramento Deepwater Ship Channel in southeastern Yolo County.
The island forms part of the funnel through which water moves
from the Yolo Bypass, a massive feature of the Sacramento River
Flood Control Project, to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
the San Francisco Bay. In essence, Little Holland Tract, along
with Liberty Island to the west, serves as the cork at the end
of the Yolo Bypass.
In 1981, my brother and I sold the island to a Spanish
farming operation. In December 1983, after a small portion of
the levees that protected the island were breached and the
Spanish firm was unable to secure financing to repair the
levees, the property reverted back to my brother and I.
In October of 1991, my brother and I entered into an
agreement with the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) for the sale of water from Little Holland Tract. The
property has senior appropriative water rights that permit the
diversion of up to 1,450 acre feet of water per year. Part of
the agreement with DWR included a payment from DWR of $75,950
to pay for the cost of repairing the breached levees, de-
flooding the island and releasing the flood water from the
island to the Delta, making it available for the 1991 Emergency
Drought Water Bank.
On February 12, 1992, the Corps of Engineers issued a
``cease and desist'' letter to my brother and I, claiming that
we had restored the levees without the necessary Section 404
permits. The Corps rejected our position that repair of the
levees was subject to Nationwide Permit 3. After months of
unsuccessful negotiations, the Corps forced my brother and I to
breach the repaired levees and inundate the island. The Corps
subsequently denied our after-the-fact section 404 application
and to date we have not been able to farm our property. Today,
it remains partially flooded and subject to tidal influences.
Given the position of the Corps, we sought and received the
help of our Congressman, Vic Fazio, in an effort to win passage
of legislation directing the Corps to acquire Little Holland
Tract and providing the Corps with the necessary funds to carry
out the acquisition. The first funds to acquire the property
were appropriated in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996,
Congress provided the balance of the funding as well as the
statutory direction to acquire the property. The only condition
that had to be met under the legislation was that the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works had to make a
determination that the acquisition was in the federal interest.
In January 1996, the Corps made that determination, citing the
enormous environmental benefits of maintaining the property in
a flooded state and directed that the island be acquired.
Today, however, it appears that we are still a long way
from final acquisition of the property by the Corps. The Corps
has appraised the property and offered my brother and me,
$735,000 for the island. This is far less than the fair market
value of the property. In 1984, the island appraised at
$1,800,000. In 1992, a private appraisal that I commissioned
during some discussions with The Nature Conservancy, valued the
property at $2,500,000. In 1995, the Congress made up to
$3,300,000 available for the acquisition. And, in 1996, the
Corps' reconnaissance study on the property valued the property
at $2,900,000, if it were still farmable.
A couple of reasons for the low appraisal have emerged.
First, federal appraisal standards preclude the use of anything
but private-to-private sales when selecting comparables to
determine the fair market value of a parcel. Federal appraisal
guidelines do not permit the use of transactions that involve a
non-profit, like The Nature Conservancy or Trust for Public
Lands, for example. Nor do they allow the use of real estate
transactions that involved another level of government, such as
the State of California, which has made significant
acquisitions in the Delta.
Second, the Corps is not very sophisticated in its
understanding of the value of water rights. During our recent
discussions with the Corps, representatives of the agency
acknowledged that the Corps had not assigned any value
whatsoever to the appropriative water rights associated with
Little Holland Tract. It is a transferable water right. It is a
senior water right. I have requested and been granted the right
to move the point of diversion for that water right twice since
my brother and I repossessed the property. Yet, the Corps
assigned no value to the appropriative water right tied to the
property.
Senior appropriative water rights similar to those
associated with Little Holland Tract have sold recently for
$1,500 per acre foot. That would place the value of the water
rights alone at $2,200,000. But the Corps, until just recently,
has refused to investigate the value of the water rights or
whether the Corps or any other federal agency would have any
use for them. During a meeting two weeks ago, my attorney asked
a representative of the Corps' real estate division if anyone
from the Corps had bothered to talk to the Bureau of
Reclamation about the value of the water rights. He also asked
if the Corps had bothered to determine if the Bureau or any
other agency within the Department of the Interior might have
an interest in the acquisition of the water rights from Little
Holland Tract. The answer he received from the Corps was,
``No.''
Third, the Corps' real estate division seems to operate in
somewhat of a policy vacuum. For example, and, again, this
focuses on the water rights issue, the Corps real estate
division has maintained that the Corps does not want the water
rights from the property, even if they have some value. We
recently asked the Corps' representatives to the CALFED process
if, from their perspective, the Corps would have an interest in
acquiring the water rights from Little Holland. The answer was
an unqualified, ``yes,'' but the real estate division of the
same agency had never solicited the views of their colleagues,
who reside just a few floors away in the same building.
Finally, the Corps tends to be very cautious in the values
it assigns to wetlands and the environmental resource benefits
of the property. The environmental benefits of maintaining and
enhancing wetlands at Little Holland Tract are well documented.
The Corps has done an entire reconnaissance study on the value
of the wetlands and wildlife habitat at Little Holland.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ``The property
is clearly valuable wetland habitat.'' This is the same tidal
marshland that has been nearly wiped out in the delta and that
CALFED is trying to restore. Little Holland Tract supports
migrant and resident waterfowl as well as shorebirds. In a
flooded state, the island provides valuable habitat for the
listed Delta smelt and winter-run chinook salmon. And, the
island also provides habitat for the listed giant garter snake.
Despite these high wetland and wildlife values, the appraisers
that I have consulted suggest that the Corps has significantly
underpriced the value of this habitat and has not adequately
distinguished between wetland habitat of varying quality.
Instead, the Corps appears to value all inundated land equally
regardless of the quality of the habitat.
As you can imagine this has been a very frustrating
experience. Here we have a prime piece of property from a
wetlands and wildlife perspective, the Congress has instructed
the Corps to acquire the property, including the water rights,
and the funds have been appropriated. Yet, fifteen months after
the Corps confirmed that the acquisition was in the federal
interest and directed that the property be acquired, the sale
has still not closed.
Land acquisitions, like Little Holland Tract, don't occur
in a vacuum in the Valley. The landowners in the region know
the tough time that we have had dealing with the Corps of
Engineers. The fact that I am dealing with the Corps of
Engineers and that land acquisitions under CALFED will probably
occur through the Bureau of Reclamation or USFWS, is often lost
on my neighbors. All they know is that the federal government
has acted with a heavy hand in dealing with the acquisition of
Little Holland Tract. They see delays and low appraisals. And,
that is not the kind of environment that encourages the kind of
willing buyer-willing seller market that will be needed for the
CALFED land acquisition to be successful.
Again, my situation may be unique. Part of the solution to
my specific situation may be to work more closely with the
Department of the Interior. We have had informal discussions
with the Bureau of Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Region about
working with the Corps of Engineers to facilitate the
acquisition of Little Holland Tract. One proposal calls for the
property to be deeded to the Department of the Interior. The
Bureau of Reclamation would assume responsibility for the water
right under California water law. It could dedicate the water
to instream flows or some other need of the agency. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, for its part, would take
responsibility for managing the island as part of one of the
wildlife refuges in the area. We are pursuing this option.
To summarize, there are four key lessons out of the Little
Holland Tract experience that may be relevant to the Committee:
(1) First and foremost, it is important which agencies are
given responsibility for carrying out the land acquisition
program. Certainly, the Corps of Engineers should not have a
role in this part of the CALFED program. They lack the
expertise, and, in particular, they lack any knowledge of water
rights, which is going to be a key component of the fair market
value of any property acquired as part of the CALFED land
acquisition program. In my view, the Bureau of Reclamation
should have the lead in this process. They have a better
understanding of the value of water rights and landowners are
used to dealing with them.
(2) There must be clear lines of communication between the
real estate divisions of the various agencies that operate in
the Valley and the Delta and the federal officials involved in
the CALFED process. While it is clear that the CALFED process
is still in its infancy, it should be clear by now to all
federal officials involved in land acquisitions in the region
that CALFED has set a high priority on acquiring prime wetlands
and wildlife habitat and water rights for environmental
purposes. It should not be the responsibility of the landowner
to build these lines of communication or educate these federal
officials.
(3) A concerted effort must be made to ensure that the
federal government is able to quickly and efficiently determine
the fair market value of property, particularly those
properties that have prime wetlands and wildlife values, and
then complete the transaction in a timely manner. The capacity
to act quickly will vastly improve the willing seller
opportunities in CALFED's habitat acquisition program. Most
landowners do not have the perseverance that I do to stay with
a process like this. Most would never step forward to
participate in a program of land acquisition unless they were
convinced that they would be treated fairly. The near-term
success of the CALFED land acquisition program hinges on
shortening the learning curve and having some early, painless
land acquisition successes.
(4) Federal appraisal standards should be modified to allow
the use of sales involving non-profit organizations and
governmental agencies. The Delta and the islands within the
Delta are very unique and the primary sales of late involve
either non-profit organizations or governmental agencies.
Automatic exclusion of these recent sales results in appraisals
that do not reflect the current value of the land and water
rights.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1039.032