[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLAN FOR THE COLORADO RIVER
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
December 10, 2001 in Las Vegas, Nevada
__________
Serial No. 107-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
76-574 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
Richard W. Pombo, California George Miller, California
George Radanovich, California Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Greg Walden, Oregon, Calvin M. Dooley, California
Vice Chairman Grace F. Napolitano, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Hilda L. Solis, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 10, 2001................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Napolitano, Hon. Grace, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 42
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, D. Larry, Director, Utah Division of Water
Resources.................................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Caan, George, Executive Director, Colorado River Commission
of Nevada.................................................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Graff, Tom, Regional Director, Environmental Defense Fund,
Oakland California......................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Raley, Hon. Bennett, Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Stapleton, Maureen A., General Manager, San Diego County
Water Authority............................................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Zimmerman, Gerald R., Executive Director, Colorado River
Board of California........................................ 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Additional materials supplied:
Arizona Department of Water Resources, Letter submitted for
the record................................................. 58
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted
for the record............................................. 60
Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, California, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 27
Levy, Tom, General Manager-Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley
Water District, Coachella, California, Statement submitted
for the record............................................. 20
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 24
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Letter submitted for
the record................................................. 64
Southern Nevada Water Authority, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 62
Utah Department of Natural Resources, Letter submitted for
the record................................................. 66
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 67
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLAN FOR THE COLORADO RIVER
----------
Monday, December 10, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Las Vegas, Nevada
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:30 p.m., the
Commission Chambers, Clark County Government Center located at
500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hon. Ken
Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert [presiding]. I want to thank all of our
witnesses for coming long distances to be here in Las Vegas,
Nevada today on a very important subject: The implementation of
the California plan for the Colorado River.
This past year has been an eventful one regarding the
management of western water and power generation. It began with
a near catastrophe in the California electricity market, which
affected the entire power grid in the western United States. It
will take years to deal with the aftershocks that emanated from
the poor leadership and lack of realistic vision and consistent
planning. To avoid a similar catastrophe with our water, the
House Resources Committee passed H.R. 3208, the Western Water
Security Enhancement Act. Our bill is the largest effort in the
past decade to shore up our scarce water resources and
associated water infrastructure while protecting our fragile
ecosystem.
We have learned a lot this past year. We recognize that the
power system is improving throughout the West by better
coordination and construction of new facilities and
transmission lines. We have also learned that power facilities
can be built and put online very quickly, in contrast to water
infrastructure and development that may take more than a decade
to come online. This is particularly troubling because if the
West were to have a drought of even short duration, the impacts
would be devastating to millions of families who depend upon a
safe, reliable water system, in addition to the havoc it would
create to our world renowned agricultural and industrial
economies.
There is no question that the water security of several
states, particularly the States of California, Arizona and
Nevada, are directly tied to the management and operation of
the Colorado River. Last month, Chairman Hansen demonstrated
that the Colorado River would become an issue this
congressional session by amending H.R. 3208 to require
California to live within its legal entitlement of 4.4 million
acre feet of water by 2016.
As many of you are aware, the last set of major
congressional hearings on the Colorado River occurred in 1994.
Since that time, many agreements have been reached by the
Department of the Interior, and water users, to further manage
the Colorado River efficiently and to the letter of the law.
While we have made good progress defining that law, challenges
certainly continue.
I look forward today to the hearing and the diverse
perspectives from our witnesses on issues surrounding the
Colorado River.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
This past year has been an eventful one regarding the management of
western water and power generation. It started out with a near
catastrophe in the California electricity market, which affected the
entire power grid in the western united states. And ended with the
House Resources Committee passing H.R. 3208, the ``Western Water
Security Enhancement Act.'' The later proving to be the largest effort
in the past decade to shore up our scarce water resources and
associated water infrastructure, while protecting our fragile
ecosystem.
We have learned a lot this past year. We recognize that the power
system is improving throughout the west by better coordination and
construction of new facilities and transmission lines. We have also
learned that power facilities can be built and on line very quickly, in
contrast to new water infrastructure and development that may take more
than a decade to come on line. This is particularly troubling because
if the west were to have a drought, even of short duration, the impacts
would be devastating to millions of families who depend upon a safe,
reliable water system, in addition to the havoc it would create to our
world renowned agricultural and industrial economies.
There is no question that the water security of several states,
particularly the states of California, Arizona and Nevada are directly
tied to the management and operation of the Colorado River. Last month,
Chairman Hansen assured that the Colorado River would become an issue
this Congressional session by amending H.R. 3208 to require California
to live within it's legal entitlement of 4.4 million acre feet of water
by 2016. As many of you are aware, the last major Congressional
hearings on the Colorado River occurred in 1994. Since that time many
agreements have been reached by the Department of the Interior, and
water users, to further manage the Colorado River efficiently, and to
the letter of the law. While we have made good progress defining that
law, challenges certainly continue.
I look forward today to hear the diverse perspectives from our
witnesses on issues surrounding the Colorado River.
______
Mr. Calvert. We have a great panel in panel one and all our
panels today to discuss the Colorado River. And our first
panel, and our first witness, is the Honorable Bennett Raley,
the Assistant Secretary of Water and Power, Department of
Interior. With that, I recognize the gentleman. We are on a 5-
minute rule.
We are not too strict about that, Mr. Raley, but you are
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BENNETT RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND
POWER, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members
of the Committee, I am Bennett Raley. I am the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science. I am pleased
to be here representing the Department of the Interior and to
offer some background and perspective on ongoing Colorado River
management actions.
Mr. Chairman, with your consent, I have asked Bob Johnson,
the Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation to sit with
me in case he can use his greater knowledge than mine to assist
the Subcommittee in answering any questions.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. Raley. I would also request that my testimony be
submitted for the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, I first wish to thank you and the
Committee. I was told by someone that the Department did not
testify at field hearings. I said, ``Yes, we do.'' This is a
matter of enormous importance; it is a matter of enormous and
complicated history. And it is an honor to be here and for you
to have had a field hearing out in the West where the Colorado
River really means something, and I thank you.
It is an honor for me personally because it was 34 years
ago that I went to my first meetings, including with some of
the people in the audience on water issues. I wish I could say
I have learned enough in that time--I have not--to be able to
offer solutions to all the problems. What I have gained,
though, is a deep appreciation for the complex
interrelationship of the interested parties in the Colorado
River and how that working relationship, which has largely been
developed since in the years leading to the 1922 Colorado River
compact and from that date forward, is so important to what we
do here today and what we will do for the future.
I am not engaging in hyperbole when I say that I believe
that subject matter we are here today to talk about is one that
is a constitutional masterpiece. I say it because the issues of
the Colorado River and its administration and its management
are so deeply embedded and founded upon the Constitution, as is
demonstrated by the fact that it starts with the Federal
Government and the states and the structure that the Framers of
the Constitution crafted, respecting their respective roles. I
say it because the Colorado River embodies the treaty power
with the Republic of Mexico. And I say it because we have seen
the Constitution work throughout the history, since 1922, and
it starts with the triumph of federalism.
It starts with the 1922 compact where seven states came
together to do what many thought was impossible and that is to
settle their disputes over the river by agreement, by rough
consensus, and in water matters consensus is always rough and
never perfect. And the important thing was that the Federal
Government respected that. Congress ratified the treaty--I am
sorry, ratified the compact, and the next time that the Federal
Government engaged was only after the lower basis had spent a
considerable amount of time trying to resolve its own
differences.
And so in another proof that this is truly an issue of
constitutional magnitude, Congress stepped in where the states
could not agree in the Lower Basin to resolve disputes
regarding the allocation of the Lower Basin's allocation. That
was not necessary in the Upper Basin, because the states of the
Upper Basin had done that themselves. The judicial branch
stepped in to resolve disputes about what Congress had done.
And I would not say that the intervention, with all due
respect to Congress and to this Committee or to the acts of the
executive branch or judicial branch, was the highlight or the
acme of success in the Colorado River, because I would say that
the success of the Colorado River and its structure is deeper
than that. It is when the states and the stakeholders get
together to resolve their differences and to make the wise
choices that the allocation and management of this important
resource requires. And that, I think, is the most important
thing to remember about the fabric, the legal fabric, the
judicial fabric, the history that we deal with so carefully
today, and that is that the proper role of the Federal
Government and the Colorado River is to act, in my own view,
when our constituents cannot reach a conclusion that serves
their interests and the national interests.
And I have every hope that the activity of the past years
where the states have come together in a series of events that
is reminiscent of the dynamics that produced the 1922 compact,
the states have come together to resolve yet another dispute,
and if crafted, something that is mutually acceptable to all of
them, that being the complex set of agreements, there is the
California plan, the Quantification Settlement Agreement, the
Secretary's implementation agreement. That was done largely
through leadership and the hard work of the states and your
constituents.
We, as an Administration, want very much for that to
succeed. We want to enable the states and the water users to
cross the finish line with the agreements that they worked so
hard to achieve to avoid a return to the battles before the
Supreme Court, to avoid taking other actions that would affect
and maybe even jeopardize the fabric of the river. We think
that it is absolutely critical that we exhaust all
opportunities and spare no effort to enable those locally
driven, state-driven agreements to succeed. But if they do not,
there is a role for the Federal Government, one for the
judiciary, one for the executive branch and for Congress,
clearly. And that is to take action where stakeholders cannot
agree amongst themselves.
And so we wait, Mr. Chairman. We wait in great hopes that
the hard work of the past years will be brought to completion
and that California, in working with its neighbor states, will
be able to continue on a path of working out issues such as the
treatment of surpluses under the law of river, in a coordinated
and cooperative fashion as opposed to the more uncertain
consequences when you proceed under the authority of one of the
Federal branches of Government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]
Statement of Bennett Raley , Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is Bennett Raley. I am Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Water and Science. I am pleased to be here representing the
Department of the Interior and to offer some background and perspective
on ongoing Colorado River management activities.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is mandated under Federal
law and the Supreme Court Decision and Decree in Arizona v. California
to serve as water master for the Lower Colorado River. In that role the
Department is responsible for administering the Colorado River water
apportionments in the three states of California, Arizona and Nevada as
well as the individual entitlements of users within those states. The
Secretary also consults with all seven Colorado River Basin States
1 regarding issues that effect the entire Colorado River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The basin states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The history of the Colorado River is filled with controversy and
conflict dating back to the early 1920's, when the allocation of
apportionments between the Upper and Lower Basins was developed. The
need for the 1922 Colorado River Compact was created by California's
early and significant development utilizing the river's water. The
passage of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, which authorized the
construction of Hoover Dam and the All American Canal in California and
established the allocation of Lower Basin apportionments, occurred in
spite of disagreement between Arizona and California. Congress
allocated the water without the concurrence of the two states, giving
California 4.4 million acre-feet of water, the largest apportionment of
all seven Colorado River basin states. To address the concerns of the
other states, Congress required that, before construction of Hoover Dam
could be initiated, the state of California must adopt a law limiting
its use to the allocated 4.4 million acre-feet (maf). In 1930, with the
passage of the California Limitation Act, the California Legislature
complied. A contract among the California entities, the ``Seven Party
Agreement,'' was subsequently developed which allocated the 4.4 maf
among water users within the State.
During the 1940's and 50's California developed facilities allowing
the utilization of more than its 4.4 maf apportionment and quickly
began full use of its share of the river, and more. During that same
time, Arizona began developing its own plans for utilization of its 2.8
maf apportionment. However, California effectively prevented Arizona
from implementing its plans, arguing that development and use of water
from Colorado River tributaries within Arizona counted against its
apportionment and limited significant additional development and
diversion from the mainstream by Arizona.
In 1951, Arizona filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the
court to clarify and support Arizona's apportionment. After 12 years of
fact finding by a Special Master and arguments by the two states, the
Supreme Court issued a decision in 1963 affirming Arizona's 2.8 maf
apportionment. In 1964, the court further affirmed the decision by
issuing a decree that, among other things, enjoined the Secretary from
delivering water in amounts outside the decreed entitlements.
Recognizing that time would be required for Arizona to develop its full
use, the court allowed California to continue to use amounts greater
than its apportionment as long as the other lower basin states were not
utilizing their full entitlements, or if surplus water was determined
to be available by the Secretary.
Despite Arizona's victory in the Supreme Court, California was
still able to extract a final concession from Arizona. In exchange for
California's support of Congressional authorization for the Central
Arizona Project (CAP), Arizona conceded to allow its CAP water to have
a subservient priority to California water use during times of shortage
on the Colorado River system. This was a significant concession since
CAP water use represents more than half--approximately 1.5 maf of its
2.8 maf--of Arizona's apportionment.
California's Internal Allocation
It is also important to provide some background on the historical
relationship among the Colorado River water users within California.
The relationship that is internal to California's water allocation is
defined by the Seven Party Agreement and related documents and is as
complicated as the relationship among all the seven basin states. The
documents that memorialized the Seven Party Agreement were executed in
1931 by the California Colorado River water users and the Secretary. In
summary, this agreement made the southern California urban area served
by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the lowest priority recipient
within the State and gave higher priority to agricultural use. Further,
it provided for a tiered entitlement system among the agricultural
users with priorities for unlimited use by three of four irrigation
districts. In addition, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), has an
entitlement for any unused water within a 3.85 maf irrigation limit.
These relative priorities have placed both MWD and CVWD at odds with
the other California contractors, particularly the Imperial Irrigation
District (IID), the largest agricultural water user not only in
California but in the entire river system.
Following the Supreme Court Decree in 1964, California continued to
utilize more than its entitlement, relying on the unused apportionment
of other lower basin states as provided for in the Decree. In the early
1990's, however, Arizona and Nevada began approaching their full
entitlement and it became apparent that California would soon have to
begin curtailing its use. The realization that California reductions
would soon be required increased the tension among the California
contractors as well as with the other basin states. Given the
California entitlement system, most of the reductions in use, as much
as 800,000 acre-feet, would have to be borne by urban users given their
low priority. With the large population served in this region of the
state along with anticipated continued significant growth, coupled with
the limited water supplies from other sources, there was significant
concern over California's ability to comply with the mandates of the
Decree.
California began pressing the other basin states and the Secretary
to utilize another section of the Decree that allows for a declaration
of surplus when hydrologic conditions permit. Such a declaration would
essentially allow California's continued utilization of more than its
entitlement, as much as 5.2 maf in some years. Because of the
contentious history and California's central role in that conflict, the
other basin states were less than enthusiastic about the proposal.
By the mid 1990's, with the encouragement of the other basin states
and the Secretary, the California parties acknowledged the need to
limit their water use and to began serious efforts to develop a plan to
achieve the reduction. Fortunately, wet conditions in the basin
resulted in full reservoirs and an abundance of water, thereby allowing
the Secretary to declare surpluses and to continue to meet all of
California's water needs while this plan was being developed.
I emphasize this history in my testimony because it underscores the
contentious relationship that has existed between California and the
other states as well as internally among the California water users. It
also facilitates an understanding of the perspectives of the various
parties. All of the other basin states have a long history of concern
about California's use of the system and have a strong desire to
protect their entitlements established under the Colorado River
Compact, the Boulder Canyon Act, the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact, and the Supreme Court Decree.
Negotiated Solution Among California's Colorado River Water Users
Efforts over the last five years have produced a negotiated
settlement of how they will reduce their use of Colorado River water
down to their 4.4 allocation. The California entities have developed a
plan to do this in a manner that does not place the burden of reduction
on the urban area. Agriculture to urban water transfers, on a willing
buyer/willing seller basis, will allow the burden of reductions to be
accommodated by irrigation water users. These transactions have been
facilitated through a Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), which
modifies the Seven Party Agreement by quantifying the entitlements of
both Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and Imperial Irrigation
District (IID) for a period of up to 75 years. The details of the
settlement have been worked out and most of the documents are ready for
execution.
Recognizing California's significant efforts and the fact that the
reductions will require some time to implement, the Secretary adopted a
plan, based on a consensus proposal from the seven basin states, to
allow California to continue to use surplus water to satisfy the needs
of the southern California urban areas for a 15 year period. The
Secretary formally adopted surplus guidelines for operation of the
river system, with the signing of a final record of decision in
January, 2001.
Deadlines for Final Implementation
The Record of Decision for the Colorado River interim Surplus
Guidelines includes specific benchmark dates and quantities by which
California must reduce its use of Colorado River water over the next 15
years. The first benchmark must be achieved in 2003. California's
failure to meet the required benchmarks would result in a reduction of
available surplus waters. The Guidelines anticipate that execution of
the QSA (and its related documents) among IID, CVWD, MWD, and the San
Diego County Water Authority by December 31, 2002 will allow the
required benchmarks to be met. I can not emphasize enough the
importance of these deadlines. While the other basin states and the
Secretary are impressed with California's efforts, a ``trust but
verify'' process has been established. Therefore, it is essential that
these required actions take place in accordance with the QSA. If
California does not meet the benchmark quantities, the recently
developed trust will be significantly undermined and would likely
result in a significant reduction in available Colorado River waters
under the terms of the Surplus Guidelines. Two dry years (roughly 60
percent of normal) in the Colorado River Basin have resulted in
significantly decreased reservoir storage. Without demonstrated
progress by California, the provisions of the surplus guidelines will
require that California live without the plentiful surplus waters that
have been available to this date.
Water Transfers and Impact on the Salton Sea
The biggest issue affecting California's successful implementation
of the water transfers associated with the plan, is achieving both
state and Federal Endangered Species Act compliance. While significant
progress has been made in this arena, addressing potential impacts that
the water transfers will have on the Salton Sea has been difficult.
Currently, IID is working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare
a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to address the impacts that the water
transfers may have on species both within the District and at the
Salton Sea. An agreement in concept to address species within the
District boundaries is nearly completed. However, reaching an agreement
on measures to mitigate the effects of the water transfers on the
Salton Sea has been much more difficult.
IID and the other California parties (CVWD, MWD, and SDCWA) have
sought both State and Federal legislation to provide relief from the
Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act for
covered activities in the HCP area. Proposed Federal legislation (H.R.
2764) was introduced August 2, 2001, to provide, among other things,
$60 million in appropriations for Salton Sea mitigation, and directs
the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue the necessary ``take'' permits
for the water transfers. Similarly, legislation introduced in the
California Assembly (A.B. 1561), to provide compliance with the
California Endangered Species Act, has been prepared and may be
considered in January 2002 .
Another possible solution that the parties are exploring entails
Reclamation entering into Section 7 consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service on potential impacts of the water transfers on the
Salton Sea. If that were to proceed, the scope of the HCP being
prepared by IID, would be adjusted to address only covered activities
within the IID service area. Further, the number of species to be
addressed would be significantly reduced because it would be limited to
Federally proposed or listed species. Two listed species, the Desert
Pupfish and the Brown Pelican, have been identified at this time. The
White Pelican, one of the most abundant fish-eating birds at the Salton
Sea, would not be included in the Consultation. The discretionary
Federal action being consulted on is the approval of the Implementation
Agreement and the water transfers off the mainstem.
The Department continues to work with all interested parties to
continue to identify other potential solutions for resolving this very
complex issue. We are committed to seeking acceptable and
scientifically sound solutions whether using existing administrative
process or legislative initiatives.
Conclusion
The resulting framework (i.e, a California Plan coupled with
Interim Surplus Guidelines) is truly historic. The negotiations have
been intense and all the parties deserve praise for their ability to
compromise and find workable solutions. The hurdles that have been
overcome are much greater than the ones before us. To allow the process
to fail now is untenable. We look forward to working with all of the
involved parties to complete the process.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman for his testimony. Mr.
Raley, you will be able to--I know you are a short time today.
How much time do you have today to spend with us?
Mr. Raley. Sir, this is important enough that I will make
whatever time I can.
Mr. Calvert. OK. Then I am going to recognize the second
panel, then we can ask questions to everyone in relationship to
the subject at hand.
On our second panel, Larry Anderson, director of the Utah
Division of Water Resources; Maureen A. Stapleton, the general
manager of San Diego County Water Authority; Tom Graff, the
regional director for the Environmental Defense Fund; George
Caan, the executive director of the Colorado River Commission;
and George R. Zimmerman, executive director of the Colorado
River Board of California.
And first I will recognize Mr. Anderson. We are still under
the 5-minute rule. Try to stay with that as much as possible;
we would appreciate it. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF D. LARRY ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, UTAH DIVISION OF
WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much. Appreciate the honor of
being here today and to appear before this panel. Again, I am
Larry Anderson. I am the director of the Utah Division of Water
Resources. I serve as Utah's interstate streams commissioner,
and I am Governor Lebiditz' representative on Colorado River
issues.
The Colorado River falls more than 12,000 feet as it flows
from the Rocky Mountains to its outlet in the Gulf of
California. Most of the flow of the Colorado River originates
high in the mountains of the Upper Basin states of Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Colorado River is an
important economic, recreational and environmental resource for
the citizens of the Upper Basin. A significant portion of the
Upper Basin states' economics revolves around, and are
supported by, the Colorado River and its tributaries for power
generation, irrigation, tourism, as well as for municipal and
industrial water supply for many communities in the West. Thus,
we are vitally concerned with the management of the Colorado
River.
Because of the critical role of water in the arid West, the
Colorado River has been subject to extensive negotiations and
litigation. This has resulted in the development of a complex
set of Federal laws, compacts, court decisions, treaties, state
laws and other agreements collectively known as the Law of the
River.
With the goal in mind of protecting the Upper Basin's
current and future uses of the Colorado River, Utah joined with
the other six Basin states in responding to a request by the
Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for which the
short-term needs of the Lower Basin could be met during a
transition period, while the lower division states,
specifically California, develops and implements a plan to
limit its use of Colorado River water to the amount allowed
under the Law of the River. After intense discussions and
negotiations among the seven Basin states, a consensus plan was
developed. The plan resulted in the development of the Colorado
River Interim Surplus Guidelines, as adopted by the Secretary
of the Interior in his Record of Decision in January of 2001.
The surplus guidelines allow the Secretary to provide water
to meet municipal and industrial uses in the Lower Basin,
particularly in California, during an interim period--2001-
2016--when the Colorado River reservoirs are projected to be
relatively full. The Interim Surplus Guidelines allows
California 15 years to implement conservation programs to
reduce their annual demand for Colorado River water, from
current uses of 5.2 million acre feet to its apportionment of
4.4 million acre feet, a reduction of 800,000 acre feet of
water annually. The California Water Plan for the Colorado
River outlines the process California will follow to reduce its
use to 4.4 million acre feet per year. During this 15-year
timeframe, the Basin states have agreed to give California a
greater assurance than hydrology may afford that surpluses will
be declared and municipal and industrial water demands will be
met during this transition period.
The Upper Basin states support the consensus reached by the
seven Basin states and expect the Federal Government and the
Secretary of the Interior to continue to follow through on the
commitments of all parties and be willing to enforce the
provisions the Interim Surplus Guidelines. We, the Upper Basin
states, think appropriate enforcement is critical to protecting
our rights to the water allocated to us under the Law of the
River.
Of great interest and concern to the Upper Basin states is
the success of the California 4.4 Plan for the Colorado River,
which is an integral part of the Interim Surplus Guidelines
Record of Decision. The plan outlines the steps California
water users must take to meet the requirements of the Interim
Guidelines. The Upper Basin states have supported, and tried to
facilitate through the Interim Guidelines, California's
development of a plan to get down to 4.4 million acre-feet of
annual use. And we fully expect the plan to be finalized and in
place by December of 2002 with all necessary agreements and
compliance documents executed.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement will be the
overarching agreement that will make possible the California
4.4 Plan. The Upper Basin states encourage Congress and the
Federal agencies to provide support for and facilitate this
agreements wherever appropriate, and if necessary, expedite any
required Federal review process. H.R. 2764 is a good example of
this facilitation, as it involves the interrelation issues of
Colorado River water use in California and Salton Sea
protection and restoration efforts. The Upper Basin states have
contacted their congressional delegations to express support
for H.R. 2764.
In conclusion, the Upper Basin states support the
implementation of the California 4.4 Plan for the Colorado
River. Our support has been demonstrated in the close working
relationship of all seven Basin states in the development of
the Interim Surplus Guidelines. The California 4.4 Plan and the
Quantification Settlement Agreement are integral parts of these
guidelines, all due diligence needs to be exercised by
Congress, Federal agencies, and the Colorado River Basin states
to achieve the worthy goal of implementing this plan and the
Quantification Settlement Agreement. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of D. Larry Anderson, Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado River
Commission and Director, Utah Division of Water Resources
The Colorado River falls more than 12,000 feet as it flows from the
Rocky Mountains to its outlet in the Gulf of California. The river has
a huge drainage basin that covers over 244,000 square miles. The seven
Colorado River Basin states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) comprise about one-twelfth of the area of the
continental United States. Despite the size of the watershed, the
Colorado River ranks only sixth among the nation's rivers in volume of
flow, with an average annual undepleted flow in excess of 17.5 million
acre-feet (MAF) (15 MAF at Lee Ferry, the compact division point).
Demands on the Colorado River are not limited to needs within the
basin. In fact, more water is exported from the basin than from any
other river in the country. The river provides municipal and industrial
water for more than 24 million people living in the major metropolitan
areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver,
Albuquerque, and hundreds of other small communities in the seven
states. It also provides irrigation water to about 2.0 million acres of
land. The river has over 60 MAF of storage capacity and 4,000 megawatts
of hydroelectric generating capacity. The river is often described as
the most regulated river in the world. Considering the river's
importance to the basin states, Native American Indian Tribes and
Mexico, the agreements that have been reached to divide the river's
waters must be considered of the utmost importance.
Most of the flow of the Colorado River originates high in the
mountains of the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming. The Colorado River is an important economic, recreational, and
environmental resource for the citizens of the Upper Colorado River
Basin states. A significant portion of the economy the Upper Basin
states revolves around and is supported by the use of the Colorado
River and its tributaries for power generation, irrigation, and tourism
as well as a municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply for many
communities. Thus we are intimately involved and vitally concerned with
the management of the Colorado River.
The Law Of The River
Because of the critical role of water in the arid west, the
Colorado River has been the subject of extensive negotiations and
litigation. This has resulted in the development of a complex set of
federal laws, compacts, court decisions, treaties, state laws and other
agreements collectively known as ``The Law of the River''. The
principal documents forming ``The Law of the River'' include:
The Colorado River Compact of 1922;
The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928;
The Mexican Treaty of 1944;
The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948;
The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956;
The U.S. Supreme Court's Arizona v. California decision
and decree of 1964;
The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968;
Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado
River Reservoirs of 1970;
Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water
Commission of 1973;
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974;
The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992;
Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines of 2001
In addition to these documents, several other federal and state
laws impact the use of the river. Some are California's Self Limitation
Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, Clean Water Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Currently a
key document is the yet to be completed California Colorado River
Quantification Settlement Act which revises and quantifies the water
use priorities in California of its Colorado River water allocation.
Interim Surplus Guidelines
One of the most important issues in the Colorado River Basin today
is the increasing municipal and industrial water demands in the Lower
Division states of Arizona, California, and Nevada as compared to their
available water supply allocated under AThe Law of the River''. Unless
and until the Lower Division states take the necessary steps to live
within their entitlement of 7.5 MAF per year, the Upper Basin states'
ability to continue to develop and use their allocations could be
impaired. With the goal in mind of protecting the Upper Basin states''
current and future uses of Colorado River water, Utah joined with the
other six basin states in responding to a call from the Secretary of
the Interior to develop a plan by which the short term needs of the
Lower Division states could be met during a transition period. During
this transition period the Lower Division states, specifically
California, will implement a plan to limit use of Colorado River water
to the amount allowed under ``The Law of the River''. After months of
intense discussions and negotiations among the seven Colorado River
Basin states, a consensus plan was developed. This consensus plan
resulted in the ``Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines''
(Guidelines) as adopted in the Secretary of the Interior's Record of
Decision (ROD) signed January 16, 2001.
The Guidelines allow the Secretary to provide water to meet
municipal and industrial (M&I) uses in the Lower Basin, particularly in
California, during an interim period 2001- 2016 (while Upper Basin
states Colorado River water demands are at less than their compact
allocation). Water users in California have been using approximately
5.2 MAF annually over the past 20 years, 800,000 acre-feet more each
year than their basic apportionment as determined in Arizona v.
California. Interim surplus guidelines allow California 15 years to
implement conservation programs to reduce its demand for Colorado River
water from 5.2 MAF to its compact allocation of 4.4 MAF. The California
4.4 Plan for the Colorado River outlines the processes California will
follow to reduce uses to 4.4 million acre-feet per year. During this
15-year time frame, the basin states have agreed to give California a
greater assurance that surpluses will be declared and M&I water demands
will be met from reservoir storage during the transition period.
These criteria are structured in such a way as to also provide
protection to the other six basin states against the potential impacts
of dry hydrology in the next 15 years. This protection will reduce the
allowable California M&I water demands that can be met by surpluses as
the reservoirs are lowered because of drought. The Upper Colorado River
Basin states support the consensus reached by the states in the
Guidelines. We expect the federal government and the Secretary of the
Interior to continue to follow through on the commitments of all
parties including enforcement of the provisions of the Interim Surplus
Guidelines if California does not meet the benchmark reduction amounts
set forth in the Guidelines and the ROD. It is critically important
that California make the anticipated progress in reducing its annual
Colorado River water use over the next 15 years. The Upper Basin states
strongly believe appropriate enforcement is critical to protecting our
allocations under AThe Law of the River''. It was on this basis the
states agreed upon the provisions that were incorporated into the now
promulgated Interim Surplus Guidelines.
California Water Use Plan for the Colorado River
Of great interest and concern to all the Colorado River Basin
states is the success of the California Water 4.4 Plan for the Colorado
River, which is inextricably linked to the Interim Surplus Guidelines
ROD. This plan outlines the necessary steps California water users must
take to meet the requirements of the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD.
The Upper Basin states have supported, and tried to facilitate through
the Guidelines, California's development of the plan to get down to 4.4
million acre-feet of annual use. We fully expect this plan to be
finalized and in place by December 31, 2002 with all necessary
agreements and compliance documents executed. Absent meeting the
December 2002 deadline for the finalization of the California 4.4 Water
Plan and associated agreements including the Quantification Settlement
Agreement, we expect the Secretary of the Interior to enforce the
provisions of the Interim Surplus Guidelines and the ROD for suspension
of the Guidelines.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement will be the overarching
agreement that will make possible the California Water 4.4 Plan for the
Colorado River. While we have some concern over the conflicts the 4.4
plan has generated within California, we fully anticipate and expect
the water users in California to solve their problems as the viability
of the Interim Surplus Guidelines hangs in the balance. The Upper Basin
states encourage Congress and federal agencies to provide support for
and facilitate these agreements wherever appropriate, and if necessary,
expedite any required federal review processes.
H.R. 2764 (Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation
Act) is a good example of this facilitation as it involves the inter-
related issues of Colorado River water use in California and Salton Sea
protection and restoration efforts. The Upper Basin states have
contacted their congressional delegations to express support of H.R.
2764. While the Salton Sea has become an important wildlife habitat, it
also should be recognized the Salton Sea is a man-made habitat
dependent upon agricultural inefficiency and resultant return flow. Any
water dedicated for use in the Salton Sea will have to come from
existing water uses in the area, which may conflict with the transfer
of agricultural water to municipal use as contemplated in the
California Water Plan for the Colorado River and the ROD benchmarks
established in the Interim Surplus Guidelines. Given the relationship
between the Salton Sea and Colorado River water use under the
California Plan, the impacts of these efforts should be carefully
evaluated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Upper Colorado River Basin states strongly
support the implementation of the California Water Plan for the
Colorado River. Our support has been demonstrated in the close working
relationship of all seven of the Colorado River Basin states in the
development of the Interim Surplus Guidelines. The California Water
Plan for the Colorado River and the Quantification Settlement Agreement
are inextricably linked to the Interim Surplus Guidelines. All due
diligence should be exercised by Congress, Federal Agencies, and the
Colorado River Basin states to achieve the worthy goal of implementing
this plan and consummating the Quantification Settlement Agreement.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. Stapleton?
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN A. STAPLETON, GENERAL MANAGER, SAN DIEGO
COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
Ms. Stapleton. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and
honorable members of the Committee--yes, there it goes. I have
an overhead presentation, and hopefully it shows up on your
screen. Terrific.
I am Maureen Stapleton, the general manager of the San
Diego Water Authority, and I am here to provide you a status
and a progress report on the implementation of the Colorado
River Plan on behalf of the major users by California of
Colorado River water, which is Metropolitan Water District of
southern California, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella
Valley Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority.
I am here to represent four major water agencies with one
purpose and one goal, and that purpose is the successful
implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan,
and ultimately the execution and implementation of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement.
I would like to provide you a brief overview, and you have
heard it from the previous speakers that basically California
has been apportioned for 0.4 million acre feet, and in the past
we have been using up to 5.2 million acre feet predominantly
through surplus declarations and the unused apportionment of
other Lower Basin states, specifically Nevada and Arizona. As
those two States have grown, their water needs have grown, and
they have used more and more of their entitlement. We are now
at a point on the river where both Nevada and Arizona are using
their apportionment, surplus water is no longer available, and
California must reduce its use.
As you have heard by the previous speakers that the
majority of the 1990's were used to basically craft a carefully
balanced agreement among the California water agencies and then
ultimately with the other six Basin states and the Department
of the Interior to develop California's Colorado River Water
Use Plan. This plan is unique in its feature that it is
literally endorsed by all seven Colorado River Basin states and
the Department of the Interior. As part of that plan, it does
include that the Bureau of Reclamation has implemented the
Interim Surplus Guidelines, which are estimated to last for 15
years to allow California a soft landing as it goes on its
water diet. Next slide, please.
You know that the Colorado River is apportioned by state,
and here we have what the basic apportionment is and then the
projected use for 2001. As you can see, as I indicated earlier,
Nevada, Arizona are taking their full apportionment, and
California is presently using approximately 5 million acre
feet.
The California plan specifically has three major components
in that it really writes a new chapter in the history of the
law of the Colorado River. What is unique about the California
plan is that it resolves the internal California water
agencies' conflicts, which some of them are literally decades
old. Additionally, unlike others that you have seen before,
this plan is an agreement among not only the California
agencies but the other six Basin states and the Federal
Government as well. And it really is a cooperative Basin-wide
approach to how we use limited resources. Unlike the history on
the Colorado River where you end up either with weapons of the
court or many, many decades ago weapons against each other,
this one is really a cooperative approach where all of us have
agreed to how to deal with this limited resource issue.
The key program elements are water transfers between
Metropolitan Water District and Imperial Valley, a 200,000
acre-foot water transfer between San Diego County Water
Authority and Imperial Irrigation District and an additional
100,000 with the Coachella Valley Water District. In addition
to these substantive water transfers, there is also a canal
lining program to capture the seepage, and that is 94,000 acre
feet. Of that, 16,000 acre feet will go to settle the San Luis
Rey Indian dispute, which has been for about 30 years now. And
then in addition to that, there are a variety of storage and
conjunctive use programs with the opportunity to capture
additional water in wet years and then utilize in dry years.
And then, as I said, as part of the California plan is the
Interim Surplus Guidelines, which are anticipated to last until
2016. They are basically a reoperation of Lake Mead to provide
California with surplus water for the urban area while we
implement these various conservation programs and projects.
The Quantification Settlement itself is the settlement
among the California agricultural agencies regarding limiting
their use of Colorado River water. It is considered the major
element of the California plan is really the blueprint on how
California will reduce its take on the river, ultimately, and
get back within its 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement. It
includes the agreements on the Water Conservation and Transfer
Programs, and it talks about moving approximately 500,000 acre
feet of water conserved in Imperial Valley, moving to the urban
agencies.
When you look at how much have we invested in the program,
unlike many large water projects in the western states, what
you see on this slide is the substantial investment by local
agencies, almost $6 billion over the 75 year-term of this
agreement, to make this Colorado River Plan happen. The State
of California has contributed an additional $235 million to
provide funding for the canal lining and some of the
conjunctive use programs. And as you know, we are requesting
funding of the Federal Government to assist us in implementing
this plan as well.
But unlike many of the water projects where you see the
most substantial amount of funding coming from the Federal and
state government with a small portion coming from the local
agencies, this is exactly opposite of that. It is where the
local agencies, our local ratepayers, your local constituents
are paying the largest chunk of this bill.
We have done a lot of environmental review related to
implementing the Colorado River Plan. There are five distinct
areas of implementation that must be evaluated from an
environmental compliance standpoint, and of the five, four of
them we believe we are near or at agreement on. In river,
changing the diversion point from Imperial Dam to Parker Dam
has to be mitigated, and the four agencies are doing so. In
Valley, the water conservation programs have an environmental
impact in the Valley. The agencies again are responding and
doing the appropriate mitigation.
There are a number of specific projects which require
mitigation as well, and, again, the four agencies are footing
the bill for that mitigation. There is an issue about the
service area of use and a question related to the growth issue,
and, again, we are responding to that in our environmental
documents.
And then, finally, we have the Salton Sea issue, which I
want to talk about a little further in detail. In 1998, U.S.
Congress passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act, and you
basically directed that a reclamation plan and alternative be
studied and funded, which looks at options to reduce and
stabilize the overall salinity of the sea. As you know, you
also directed that the feasibility study be back before
Congress in January of 2000, but, unfortunately, those
alternatives which were first vetted to you were found not
viable.
You will also remember that as part of the 1998 act, that
the options were to assume up to a 500,000 acre-foot loss of ag
drainage water, and that was to reflect, to a great extent, the
anticipated water transfers, which California and Congress knew
were coming. Specifically, the act precluded the use of
additional Colorado River water directly to the Salton Sea.
Again, we knew that that would be in conflict with the Law of
the River and would create additional dynamics on the river,
which we thought were not viable. And the revised feasibility
study is due sometime in early to mid-2002.
Why this time is so important is the four agencies that
were working on the Colorado River Plan assumed that Congress
would have in hand in January of 2000, you would have those
options available to you and would make decisions prior to our
drop dead date of December of 2002. Because the alternatives
report went back to the drawing board, it has created the
dynamic and the challenge that we are all dealing with today.
As you know, the Salton Sea status is that it is
deteriorating and will do so with or without the water
transfers. Historically, the sea has increased about TDS parts
per million in salinity each and every year. The temporal
impacts of the water transfer are real. The sea is anticipated
to turn super saline in sometime between 7 and 22 years.
Sometimes that has been raised as high as 25 years. They are
estimates, our best estimates by the scientists who have been
working on the alternatives.
The transfer itself will accelerate the salinity, the
timing of the salinity or when the sea would turn hyper-saline
by between one and 9 years. So it may be that in the most
conservative approach we have an impact of about 15 years on
the Salton Sea. It is important to note, however, that the
water transfers are not causing the hyper-saline condition at
the sea, but the Salton Sea and the species at the sea continue
to remain in jeopardy with or without the transfer.
We have worked on a variety of solutions and have sought
them both administratively and legislatively. We are working
very hard with the Department of Interior, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service to pursue an
administrative solution to this challenge of the timing between
the Salton Sea reclamation and the water transfer
implementation.
Additionally, the Hunter bill, as you are familiar with,
H.R. 2764, was introduced to address the issue related to both
funding and to providing regulatory certainty for the water
transfers in the four water agencies. We are hoping that we
will be able to make significant progress with the
Administration in seeking as much of the solution to this
conundrum as possible administratively, but we do believe that
legislative effort may be necessary in the end. And then as you
know, Chairman Calvert, the recent authorization of $60 million
for Salton Sea mitigation was added to your H.R. 3208 just
recently.
We are also, on the California side, we are working with
our resources agency, our Department of Fish and Game and our
Department of Water Resources, as well as the environmental
community to pursue an administrative solution. We have not
only the challenge of the Endangered Species Act on the
California side, but we also have California's Fully Protected
Special Act, which comes into play on the Salton Sea issue as
well. And we are hopeful that we will find an administrative,
and it may be necessary on the fully protected side, it will be
necessary, for us to seek legislative solution on that as well.
Why is timely action needed? We have a deadline, and that
deadline, as you have heard, there is an expectation that that
deadline will be enforced. We must approve the plan for
environmental compliance and ultimately execute the
Quantification Settlement Agreement by December 31 of 2002. If
we do not do so, California's Interim Surplus Guidelines are in
jeopardy, and that jeopardy may lead to the potential loss of
up to 700,000 acre feet of water for southern California. That
is critical for all of California, it puts tremendous pressure
on our limited resources in California, and it is--as the
previous speakers have said, we must succeed, because the other
option is not acceptable. Everyone agrees what we are trying to
reach we are trying to reach successful implementation. The
environmental community, the agriculture agencies, the urban
agencies, we are working to try to reach this goal. There are
serious ramifications if we do not reach the goal, and we are
asking for your assistance to help assure that we get there.
[The prepared statements of the San Diego County Water
Authority, the Coachella Valley Water District, the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the
Imperial Irrigation District follow:]
[Letters submitted for the record may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
Statement of Maureen A. Stapleton, General Manager, San Diego County
Water Authority
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Maureen
Stapleton, General Manager of the San Diego County Water Authority. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status and current progress
in implementing California's Colorado River Water Use Plan (California
Plan) on behalf of Southern California's major users of the Colorado
River water. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD), the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Imperial Irrigation
District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), which
I will refer to collectively as the ``Agencies --have progressed
considerably in a unified and cooperative effort to ensure that
California can live within its basic apportionment of Colorado River
water.
This California Plan progress report is being supplemented with
additional Agencies'' statements on efforts that further serve to
advance the California Plan and to meet the region's water supply and
management needs. I respectively request that our collective written
statements be made part of the hearing record. I am also including
letters from representatives of the Colorado River basin states
indicating both their support and concern for the implementation of the
California Plan, and for Congressman Hunter's bill to facilitate its
implementation, H.R. 2764. I request that these letters also be made
part of the hearing record.
The Colorado River is a vital water resource for Southern
California, supporting a tremendous agricultural industry and more than
17 million residents in one of the most economically productive regions
of the world, including the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego. The
state has a Colorado River basic annual apportionment of 4.4 million
acre-feet per year. But for many years California has used over 5
million acre-feet per year, relying on system surpluses and the
apportioned but unused waters of Arizona and Nevada. California's
reliance on water above its basic apportionment has long been of great
concern to the other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. In recent
years, Arizona and Nevada have begun using nearly their full
apportionments, and dry weather has diminished opportunities for system
surpluses. California now has no alternative but to reduce its reliance
on the river. The California Plan must be implemented to allow the
state to transition to its basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet
per year. Unless California can eliminate its reliance on surplus, the
Southern California urban coastal plain will face massive water
shortages.
The magnitude of our joint effort is extraordinary. We are reducing
California's use of Colorado River water up to 800,000 acre-feet per
year and must still continue to meet the region's water needs. This
reduction is equivalent to the amount of water used annually by more
than 5 million people in Southern California. Such a dramatic shift in
resources is made possible through California Plan programs to conserve
agricultural water and transfer it for urban uses, as well as
groundwater storage and conjunctive use projects, and other water
management programs. One of the most important components of the
California Plan is the transfer of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year of
water from the IID to SDCWA. This transfer will shore up the
reliability of the region's water supply and help eliminate the
dependence on surplus water to fill the Colorado River Aqueduct.
Progress to Date
California is at a crucial juncture in terms of its use of Colorado
River resources. The urgent need to reduce river use is well understood
by the Agencies. They have responded with the California Plan, which
was developed in consultation with and is supported by the other six
Colorado River Basin states and the Department of the Interior. To
date, the Agencies have successfully fast-tracked a wide range of
complex legal agreements and environmental documents needed to
implement the Plan. The October 1999 Key Terms For Quantification
Settlement Among the State of California, IID, CVWD and MWD identified
12 specific areas of conditions that need to be satisfied or waived
prior to execution of the QSA and related documents. This includes the
completion of the related environmental reviews, implementing interim
surplus guidelines, implementing an inadvertent overrun and payback
program relative to Colorado River water consumptive use, completing
the SWRCB water transfer petition review process, and obtaining
conserved water and a means to deliver the water for the San Luis Rey
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. The critical path for satisfaction
of the conditions contains the environmental reviews and the subsequent
SWRCB water transfer petition review process for the IID/SDCWA and the
IID/CVWD/MWD option water transfers. The remaining conditions have been
or are achievable within the required time frame for executing the QSA
and related documents.
The following is a list of the major accomplishments (including
program and project implementation) to date that either relate to the
California Plan or aid in their effectiveness and implementation:
December 1988 - IID/MWD Water Conservation and Use of
Conserved Water and the associated 1989 Approval Agreement
April 1998 - Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement
between IID and SDCWA
August 1998 - Water Exchange Agreement between SDCWA and
MWD
September 1998 - State funding of $235 million for canal
lining and conjunctive use elements of the California Colorado River
Water Use Plan
October 1999 - Key Terms for Quantification Settlement
Agreement Among the State of California, IID, CVWD and MWD (a
prerequisite for Secretarial approval of transfers)
November 1999 - Secretary of the Interior Final Rule on
Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water (Interstate Banking)
May 2000 - California Colorado River Water Use Plan (a
prerequisite for Secretarial Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines)
December 2000 - Public release of the draft QSA by QSA
parties
January 2001 - United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Biological Opinion for interim Surplus Guidelines and river impacts of
the QSA
January 2001 - Record of Decision Colorado River Interim
Surplus Guidelines
May 2001 - Interim Surplus Guidelines Agreement between
Arizona and MWD
Draft Interim Surplus Guidelines Agreement between
Southern Nevada Water Authority and MWD
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related
environmental reviews and negotiations
Proposed Land Management, Crop Rotation, Water Supply
Program between PVID and MWD
Draft Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
All American Canal and Coachella Canal lining projects
environmental reviews, state funding and construction agreements
Drafts of the QSA and all related legal documents
MWD, in cooperation with others, has initiated
development of potential River water storage and conjunctive use
programs in:
- Hayfield Valley
- Chuckwalla Valley
- Cadiz Valley
- Lower Coachella Valley
- Arizona
The California water agencies have already spent millions of
dollars toward formulating and securing approval of vital components of
the California Plan, and will commit billions of dollars upon their
implementation. In addition, the State of California has appropriated
$235 million for canal lining and groundwater projects in furtherance
of the California Plan. The Plan will be complemented by efforts to
aggressively promote additional water conservation, water reuse, and
local water supply development within the service area boundaries of
each agency, which are discussed in the accompanying Agencies''
statements.
California Plan -- Implementation Timeline
California was given the time necessary to implement the water
conservation and transfers when the Secretary of Interior adopted the
Interim Surplus Guidelines (Guidelines) in January 2001. The Guidelines
are essentially rules for operating Lake Mead that allow California to
receive additional surplus water for 15 years, or through 2016. During
this interim period, California is expected to implement the necessary
water transfers and other programs. California has already obtained
great benefit from this action, receiving enough water this calendar
year to maintain a full Colorado River Aqueduct for urban water use.
The Guidelines are contingent, however, upon California's successful
completion of certain deadlines and milestones.
One critical deadline that must be met is the execution of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the most important element
of the California Plan, by December 31, 2002. The ability to execute
the QSA by this deadline is the single most important issue facing us
today. If the QSA is not executed by this deadline, the California Plan
is at grave risk of unraveling. The Parties, in consultation with the
Congress and the federal administration, have concluded that federal
assistance - either through administrative actions or legislation - is
needed to meet the QSA deadline.
The QSA is an agreement designed to settle longstanding differences
between the Agencies and implement core water transfers, including the
Imperial/San Diego transfer. An integral part of the California Plan,
the QSA must be completed to continue the Guidelines and allow the
California Plan to go forward. The Guidelines specifically provide that
unless the QSA is executed by December 31, 2002, the surplus provisions
that benefit Southern California will be suspended until such time as
California completes all required actions and complies with reductions
in water use reflected in the Guidelines. This means that the
additional surplus water provided under the Guidelines could be revoked
as early as calendar year 2003, resulting in the loss of up to 700,000
acre-feet per year of water to urban southern California.
Environmental Compliance Issues
The Agencies have worked with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to reach agreement on an on-river
habitat and backwater mitigation plan to address the impacts of
transferring 400,000 acre-feet of water per year. The impacts include
changing the point of water diversion from the river and location of
water use. Additionally, agreements will be in place for in-valley
measures to mitigate impacts of the programs in the area where the
water conservation will occur. Likewise, project-specific environmental
reviews are addressing project impacts. This includes canal lining
projects and water storage and conjunctive use programs.
The remaining major federal issue regarding execution of the QSA is
how to address potential environmental impacts of water transfers on
the Salton Sea. The transfer of conserved water from the agricultural
sector to the urban sector is essential in order to allow California to
live within its 4.4 million acre-foot basic apportionment. However,
water conservation in agricultural areas using Colorado River water,
specifically the Imperial Irrigation District, may cause reduced
agricultural drainage inflows into the Salton Sea.
The Salton Sea and its fishery are man-made. The Salton Sea was
created in 1905 when floodwaters of the Colorado River broke through
diversion facilities along the river near the international boundary
and carried the entire flow of the Colorado River through the Alamo
canal into the below sea level Salton Sink until the breach was finally
closed in 1907. As provided for by presidential executive orders in the
1920's, the principal purpose of federal Salton Sink lands beneath
elevation minus 220 feet since that time has been to serve as a
drainage reservoir for the irrigation drainage waters from the
Imperial, Coachella and Mexicali valleys. Without these drainage
inflows, the Sea would evaporate and disappear. Freshwater fish species
that were carried by the floodwaters died off as the salinity level of
the Sea rose. Beginning in 1929, the California Department of Fish and
Game created a salt water fishery by introducing various species of
sport fish from the Gulf of California. Other exotic fish have been
accidentally introduced to the Sea and have established populations.
Today the Salton Sea is used by many species of migratory birds,
including certain endangered species. Some of these birds rely on the
fish in the Sea for their food source. Because of evaporation, the
Sea's salinity has increased steadily over the years, and will continue
to increase absent intervention. Now at a salinity of 44,000 parts per
million, which is 25 percent saltier than the Pacific Ocean, the Salton
Sea is approaching a ``hypersaline'' condition, in which the
reproduction and survival of fish is jeopardized. It has been estimated
that under current conditions, the Sea will reach a critical salinity
level that is unable to support a fishery in 7 to 25 years.
The causes of increasing salinity and environmental decline of the
Salton Sea extend far beyond any effect of the transfers. Congress
recognized this fact in the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public Law
105-372) and directed that the transfers be included in the baseline
condition of proposed Salton Sea reclamation options. The legislation
acknowledged the transfers' importance to California, the other
Colorado River Basin states, and Mexico.
The 1998 reclamation law required a feasibility study, providing
reclamation options, be submitted to Congress by January 1, 2000. This
study has yet to be completed. The QSA, and its 2002 deadline for
execution, is therefore ahead of the federal Salton Sea reclamation
effort. Because of this, the Agencies must separately address
environmental compliance related to the water transfers at the Salton
Sea. This is difficult because the environmental impacts related to the
Endangered Species Act are temporal in nature and not easily
quantified. The best scientific analysis available has shown that the
Salton Sea will reach the critical hypersaline environment 1 to 9 years
earlier if the QSA transfers are implemented. Absent a comprehensive
solution, the Salton Sea will soon reach a hypersaline level with or
without the QSA water transfers.
These matters are beyond the Agencies direct control to resolve.
Accordingly, the Agencies have met extensively with Department of the
Interior officials, including the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, to determine how the QSA may be executed within
the time frame required. We are very appreciative of the assistance we
have received and the recognition that this is an urgent matter. In
August, Congressman Hunter introduced the Colorado River Quantification
Settlement Facilitation Act (H.R. 2764), to address the Salton Sea
issues and other matters important to the California Plan. H.R. 2764
provides $60 million for the first phase of Salton Sea reclamation, if
Congress authorizes such reclamation before 2007. If reclamation were
not authorized by that time, the funds would be used for habitat
enhancement programs to protect endangered species that use the Salton
Sea. The measure would also provide $53 million for small off-stream
water management reservoirs to improve water conservation and river
management, which could also provide improved water supply management
options for Mexico. The Bureau of Reclamation estimated that last year
about 300,000 acre-feet was lost from Colorado River reservoir storage
because of the inability to re-regulate lower Colorado River flows.
More recently, Congressman Calvert's H.R. 3208, the Western Water
Security Enhancement Act, would authorize the appropriation of $60
million for activities to address environmental impacts on the Salton
Sea associated with implementation of the QSA.
The Agencies have also pursued a similar course of action with
California's state administration and legislature to address compliance
with the California Endangered Species Act and a special provision of
California law dealing with ``Fully Protected Species.'' The State of
California places a high priority on implementing the California Plan
and the associated QSA, and the Secretary for the California Resources
Agency, Mary Nichols, is chairing a broad-based group working to solve
the state issues. All of the parties recognize the urgency of getting a
bill before the California legislature in January 2002.
Federal Administrative or Legislative Actions
Mr. Chairman, the California Plan and its related agreements came
into existence at the insistence of and with the welcome coordination
of the federal government, expressed through the Secretary of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, which have responsibility for
managing the Colorado River. I believe there is a recognition, and
rightfully so, that the federal government has a large stake in the
California Plan and QSA and shares with us a responsibility to effect
their implementation. Additionally, the Colorado River Basin states
deserve a workable, credible, and specific plan to meet the objectives
of the Interim Surplus Guidelines and the California Plan. The states
deserve no less, as the rightful beneficiaries of a settlement of these
historic entitlements. To accomplish this goal we should continue along
the following course:
First, Congress needs to address the reclamation of the Salton Sea
as a separate matter consistent with the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation
Act. Each of the Agencies has passed a resolution in support of
expeditiously addressing the reclamation of the Salton Sea. Congress
through the 1998 Act assumed a decision responsibility for reclamation
of the Salton Sea and established a federal role and responsibility for
any reclamation actions. Reclamation of the Sea cannot and should not
be the responsibility of the Agencies.
Secondly, in order to address the outstanding issues relating to
the Salton Sea which I have identified, there may be administrative and
legislative options that need to be pursued to accomplish the
objectives of the QSA. At the administrative level, we have been
working closely with the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to expeditiously address
the remaining issues. At the legislative level, Congressman Hunter
introduced H.R. 2764 to address the Salton Sea issues and other matters
important to the California Plan, and Congressman Calvert has included
in H.R. 3208 substantial funding to deal with Salton Sea environmental
issues. Depending upon the administrative solutions available,
complementary action by Congress may be needed as an integral part of
the solution and in order to meet the deadlines we face.
In concluding, I would like to restate the Agencies'' commitment to
executing the QSA, maintaining the Colorado River Interim Surplus
Guidelines for the full interim period, and implementing the California
Plan to allow California to live within its basic apportionment.
And finally, we would like to express our appreciation for the
opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss these very
important matters. We look forward to addressing any questions you may
have.
______
Statement of Tom Levy, General Manager and Chief Engineer, Coachella
Valley Water District
Introduction and Background
My name is Tom Levy. I am general manager-chief engineer of the
Coachella Valley Water District.
The Coachella Valley Water District provides a variety of water-
related services throughout a 1,000-square-mile service area in the
southeastern California desert. It is primarily located in that portion
of Riverside County commonly referred to as the greater Palm Springs
area but it also provides domestic water service and sanitation in a
portion of Imperial County along the Salton Sea and its boundaries
extend into a small part of San Diego County.
The district was founded under the County Water District Act of the
State of California in 1918. It acquired regional flood control
responsibilities when it absorbed the Coachella Valley Stormwater
District in the late 1930s. In addition to stormwater protection, the
district provides irrigation water from the Colorado River to about
70,000 acres of farmland. It provides domestic water to nearly 83,000
homes and businesses in the cities and communities of Cathedral City,
Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Thermal, Mecca,
Oasis, Desert Shores, Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach and
surrounding areas. Wastewater collected from nearly 72,000 sanitation
hookups flows to six reclamation plants where most is converted to high
quality water for reuse for golf course and greenbelt irrigation. The
district also operates groundwater recharge facilities for much of
Coachella Valley.
While all of Southern California is a desert, with an average
annual rainfall of only about 12 inches on the coastal plain, Coachella
Valley is especially arid with only about 3 inches of precipitation
annually. There are no major rivers flowing through the area so most of
Southern California's water supply must be imported from great
distances - the eastern Sierra, Northern California and the Colorado
River. Coachella Valley Water District has contracted to receive water
from both Northern California and the Colorado River.
All domestic water the district delivers is pumped from a large
groundwater basin, also in a state of overdraft. It currently is
replenished by natural flows of snowmelt from surrounding mountains and
by imported water from the Colorado River through a contract with the
Bureau of Reclamation and from the California State Water Project.
Supply Challenges
Colorado River Supply: California's Colorado River reliable supply
is limited by the U.S. Supreme Court and by the California Limitation
Act to 4.4 million acre-feet per year. Accompanying charts show the
division of the river's waters between the states and between agencies
within California. Still, during the last 10 years the state has used
more than S million acre-feet annually. The loss of 600,000 to 800,000
acre-feet of water annually to Southern California when California is
limited by ``normal'' Colorado River flows carries with it significant
adverse economic impacts unless enough time is granted to implement
essential reductions in use and development of alternative sources.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.012
Now that Arizona has developed uses for its full entitlement,
excess water for California is a luxury of the past. Realizing this,
and with prodding from the other basin states and the Secretary of the
Interior, California and its Colorado River water purveyors have been
working for several years on a plan to ultimately reduce the state's
demand on the river to its basic entitlement. While negotiations
continue to resolve individual agency supply concerns, enough progress
had been made by the beginning of this year to earn the Secretary of
the Interior's concurrence on Interim Supply Guidelines which allow the
state 15 years to orderly reduce its demand on the river to its basic
entitlement. These guidelines are conditional on the Quantification
Settlement Agreement being operational by December 31, 2002. Arizona
and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWD) have worked
out an agreement where that state would allow California surplus
supplies in exchange for MWD protecting Arizona from shortage impacts.
Currently, progress is being made concerning environmental impact
documents for the
Quantification Settlement Agreement. All seven Colorado River Basin
states support implementation of the California Plan to significantly
reduce the state's Colorado River consumption.
Unless the Quantification Settlement Agreement is executed by
December 31, 2002, urban Southern California could lose up to 750,000
acre-feet per year of Colorado River water, resulting in a water crisis
with severe economic impacts. To meet this schedule, all environmental
compliance actions must first be secured. This requires congressional
action because the Fish and Wildlife Service is unable to grant
necessary permits before mitigation is authorized and funded. State
legislation is necessary to address the California Endangered Species
Act and Fully Protected Species law.
The Interim Surplus Guidelines state that ``In the event that the
California contractors and the Secretary have not executed such
agreements (Quantification Settlement Agreement and related agreements)
by December 31, 2002, the interim surplus determinations under Sections
2(B)(1) and 2(B)(2) of these Guidelines will be suspended and will
instead be based upon the 70R Strategy...'' The 70R Strategy is more
conservative than the criteria that was in place prior to the Interim
Surplus Guidelines and would result in a ``normal'' determination,
i.e., no surplus water, and California would be limited to 4.4 million
acre-feet for 2001 and 2002. This would have resulted in a 30 percent
reduction in the water supply to coastal southern California if it
would have occurred this year. The shortage would move out from coastal
southern California and impact the rest of the state. The economic
impacts would be significant and would make the power crisis look
insignificant.
Prior to signing the Interim Surplus Guidelines, the Secretary had
tremendous flexibility in declaring surpluses on the River. However, by
agreeing to the Interim Surplus Guidelines, the Secretary has limited
her discretion on surpluses and she cannot change the criteria without
formal rule making and environmental review. We are running out of time
to accomplish any changes prior to the December 31, 2002, deadline
assuming that the other basin states would agree to a delay or changes
in the Interim Surplus Guidelines. Since they agreed to the Interim
Surplus Guidelines, the runoff on the Colorado River has been below
normal and the level in the reservoirs has dropped several million acre
feet. This makes their agreement less likely.
Some may argue that we can meet the coastal southern California
water needs through other programs with the California Colorado River
agricultural agencies such as the recently announced Palo Verde
Irrigation District/ MWD land fallowing program and the purchase of
16,000 acres of land in the Palo Verde valley by MWD. However, under
the Law of the River, Colorado River water flows through the priority
system with the agencies in between the Palo Verde Irrigation District
and MWD having the right to use that water without any charge. This
results in the lack of reliability of those supplies.
If California is limited to 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado
River, will the California Colorado River agriculture agencies continue
to get 3.85 million acre-feet or will the Governor or the Secretary
take action to attempt to take water from them? How will the Salton Sea
be addressed if immediate action is necessary to save the California
economy?
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.013
Without legislative action this year, the Quantification Settlement
Agreement, Colorado River surplus guidelines, the seven state
commitments and the ability of California to meet is obligations to
stay within its Colorado River allocation would all be negated.
This concern is voiced by other Colorado River Basin states in
attached letters from Wyoming, Colorado and Nevada.
The sought federal legislation would also authorize development of
off-stream water management reservoirs near the All-American Canal to
enhance off-stream storage capability. It would also enhance the
ability of Mexico to make efficient use of its Colorado River
entitlement and would assist the development of a reliable water supply
for the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement.
The Salton Sea was created shortly after the turn of the century
when man accidentally diverted the entire flow of the Colorado River
into the Salton Sink for two years. It has been maintained since by
Colorado River water diverted to irrigate the Imperial and Coachella
Valleys in California and the Mexicali Valley in Mexico.
Today the sea is a primary resting place for migratory birds,
including some endangered species.
With a surface elevation nearly 220 feet below sea level, the only
way water leaves the Salton Sea is through evaporation which leaves the
salts behind making today's sea saltier than ocean water. There has
been much work done locally and in Washington toward saving the Salton
Sea but this must remain a separate issue. We are members of the Salton
Sea Authority and are committed to the restoration of the Salton Sea.
Originally, Congress was to have a plan for the restoration of the
Salton Sea ahead of the water transfers and it would have addressed the
restoration before the approval of the water transfers occurred.
Unfortunately, the plan that was submitted to Congress in January 2000
failed to conform to the direction provided in the 1998 Salton Sea
Restoration Act and was rejected. The Salton Sea Authority and the
Bureau of Reclamation are developing a feasibility report which will
propose a plan to restore the Sea. It appears the all viable solutions
will require some form of fallowing. The Salton Sea is becoming more
saline each year and will change to the point that the fisheries will
cease to exist and the birds will leave. Without the intervention of
man, the Sea will change from what we now know without any transfers.
The impact of the transfers on the Sea is to reduce the water flowing
into it. Studies by the Bureau of Reclamation show the Quantification
Settlement Agreement transfers to accelerate the demise of the Sea from
one to eight years. The Quantification Settlement Agreement parties
assumed that the necessary state and federal permits for endangered
species at the Salton Sea would have been addressed by the restoration
plan and therefore, did not include the cost of mitigation in the
settlement. How to address the impacts of temporal impacts is not clear
in the endangered species legislation. Requiring the water transfers to
fully mitigate for the maximum possible impacts on the Sea would cost
between $500 million and $1 billion and would kill the Quantification
Settlement Agreement. Habitat such as wetlands adjacent to the sea can
be created to address the endangered species needs resulting from
Colorado River water conservation and transfer programs which will
reduce inflow to the sea.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.014
Groundwater supply: The Coachella Valley groundwater basin has a
large supply of water, however, it is in a state of overdraft. We are
currently in the public review stages of a valley-wide water management
plan which will resolve the overdraft. The water supply to allow us to
eliminate the overdraft is provided through the water we obtain under
the Quantification Settlement Agreement (See CVWD Water Budget). We
obtained a total supply for the lower Coachella Valley of 456,000 acre-
feet and 50,000 acre-feet for the upper Coachella Valley through the
transfer of 100,000 acre-feet of State Water Project entitlement from
MWD with MWD retaining the rights to receive the water in dry years.
Without this supply, we will become a buyer of water to prevent the
economic impacts to the valley of continuing the overdraft.
The plan requires implementation of a variety of conservation,
conjunctive use, importation and reclamation activities designed to
reduce use without damaging the valley's lifestyle or joint economic
bases of tourism and agriculture.
It involves more use of Colorado River water to reduce the demand
on the groundwater basin and increased availability of state project
water for exchange to increase the availability of water for
groundwater recharge. These issues are closely tied to current
negotiations concerning the Colorado River Quantification Settlement
Agreement.
Measures and Assistance Needed
Probably the most important issue facing Southern California water
users which requires state and federal participation is the Colorado
River Quantification Settlement Agreement. To go forward, we need
congressional help in the form of $60 million for enhancement programs
to protect endangered species habitat around the sea and direction to
accept and implement a habitat conservation plan for Imperial Valley
and the Salton Sea.
State legislation is needed to address the California Endangered
Species Act and Fully Protected Species law.
Restoration of the Salton Sea is an issue that Congress and the
California legislature need to address. However, the schedule for this
important action is behind the implementation of the Quantification
Settlement Agreement and should not result in failure of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement and the resolution devastating
economic impacts on California.
Concluding Remarks
Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns about the
California's water future. The importance to passage of Congressman
Hunter's H.R. 2764 to help us facilitate the successful implementation
of the Quantitative Settlement Agreement cannot be overemphasized.
If you desire additional information about Coachella Valley Water
District or some of the issues I have mentioned here we would welcome a
visit to our web site: www.cvwd.org
______
Statement of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) is actively engaged with Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD), Imperial Irrigation District (IID), and San Diego County Water
Authority (SDCWA) (collectively, the Agencies) in the implementation of
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan and the associated
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) to reduce California's
dependency on Colorado River water. Metropolitan, in coordination with
others, is undertaking the development of voluntary cooperative water
conservation/transfers, water storage and conjunctive use programs,
other cooperative water supply programs, water exchanges, dry-year
supply programs, and interim surplus guidelines'' agreements as part of
the effort to reduce the state of California's Colorado River water use
to its basic annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet, a reduction
of about 800,000 acre-feet per year from its highest use of about 5.2
million acre-feet per year in the past ten years.
In addition to these efforts, Metropolitan has undertaken major
investments to lessen its demand for imported water, meet future
demands, and improve supply water quality. This is being done through
significant investments in increased water conservation, recycling,
local projects, groundwater recovery programs, in-service area storage
and conjunctive use projects, watershed management, source-water
quality protection, and improved desalting and other water treatment
technologies. Coordination of these efforts is carried out through
Metropolitan's Integrated Resources Plan and the Plan's strategies of
supply reliability and affordability, and water quality enhancement and
protection.
This statement complements the joint California Plan progress
report of the Agencies submitted by Maureen Stapleton, General Manager,
San Diego County Water Authority, to the Subcommittee, by providing a
brief overview of Metropolitan-specific efforts to increase its water
supply reliability, diversify its sources of supply, reduce the
region's reliance on imported water, and improve the effective use of
local water supplies.
Metropolitan is a public agency established under a legislative act
in 1928 to secure imported water supplies for its member agencies.
Metropolitan's 5,200-square mile service area stretches some 200 miles
along the coastal plain of southern California and encompasses parts of
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura
Counties. More than 17 million people reside within Metropolitan''
service area.
Today, Metropolitan provides over 50 percent of the water used
within its service area. Metropolitan receives water from two principal
sources, the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the
State Water Project (northern California water), via the California
Aqueduct. To further help meet the water needs of member agencies,
Metropolitan assists in the development and effective use of local
resources, beginning in the late 1950s with cooperative groundwater
recharge programs and evolving over time to member agency partnerships
for water conservation, water recycling, groundwater recovery, and
water storage and conjunctive use programs.
The 444-mile State Water Project (SWP) is owned by the State of
California and operated by the California Department of Water
Resources. The SWP transports water released from Oroville Dam and
flows that have traveled into the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay/Delta), south via the California Aqueduct to
four delivery points near the northern and eastern boundaries of
Metropolitan. Metropolitan is one of 29 agencies that have contracts
for water service with the California Department of Water Resources.
Metropolitan's SWP contract is for a total of 2,011,500 acre-feet
per year. The contracted amount was increased in 1964 from 1,500,000
acre-feet per year principally to offset the impending loss of a
portion of Metropolitan's Colorado River supply resulting from the 1963
United States Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California.
Improvement of the supply reliability of the SWP and the development of
comprehensive long-term solutions to the environmental problems in the
Bay/Delta system are the focus of the CALFED process and legislation.
Under ``The Law of the River'', California is apportioned the use
of 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado River each year plus one-
half of any surplus water that may be available for use in the Lower
Basin. Metropolitan has a legal entitlement to Colorado River water
under a permanent service contract with the Secretary of the Interior.
The Colorado River Aqueduct, which is owned and operated by
Metropolitan, transports water from the Colorado River approximately
242 miles to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. It has
the capability to divert about 1.3 million acre-feet per year. Under
the priority system that governs the distribution of Colorado River
water made available to California, Metropolitan holds the fourth
priority right to 550,000 acre-feet per year. This is the last priority
within California's annual basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-
feet. Metropolitan holds the fifth priority right to 662,000 acre-feet
of water per year, which is in excess of California's annual basic
apportionment. Historically, Metropolitan has been able to take
advantage of its fifth priority right entitlement as a result of the
availability of surplus water and Colorado River water apportioned but
unused by Arizona and Nevada.
Over the last ten years, California entities have diverted 4.5 to
5.2 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River, relying on
system surpluses and apportioned but unused waters of the other Lower
Basin states that will not be available in the future. The Colorado
River Board of California, in consultation with the California
Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan, CVWD, IID, Palo Verde
Irrigation District (PVID), SDCWA, the City of Los Angeles, and others,
has developed California's Colorado River Water Use Plan (California
Plan). The California Plan provides a framework and timetable for the
reduction of California's use of Colorado River water to its annual
basic apportionment through reallocation of water supplies among the
involved water agencies (voluntary water conservation/transfers),
cooperative water storage and conjunctive use programs, and by other
means.
If no new agreements were executed and no surplus water were
available, Metropolitan's annual supply of Colorado River water would
have a shortfall of about 600,000 acre-feet per year that can and
should be avoided. The statewide economic and environmental
consequences of this shortfall would simply not be acceptable. There is
no substitute for success in implementing a plan for reducing
California's dependency on Colorado River water that is acceptable to
the Secretary of the Interior and the other Basin states.
Multi-billion dollar investments and contributions that have been
and are being made by Metropolitan or by Metropolitan in cooperation
with others that directly reduce California's dependence on Colorado
River water include:
Colorado River Water Agriculture to Urban Water Transfers
December 1988 IID/MWD Water Conservation and Use of
Conserved Water Agreement and Associated 1989 Approval Agreement -
yield of 100,000 to 110,000 acre-feet per year (QSA core transfer)
[PROJECT OPERATIONAL]
April 1998 Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement
between IID and SDCWA--yield of 130,000 to 200,000 acre-feet per year,
and August 1998 Water Exchange Agreement between SDCWA and MWD (QSA
core transfer)
Coachella Canal [begin construction October 2002] and
All-American Canal (begin construction September 2003] Lining Projects
- yield of 94,000 acre-feet per year, including 16,000 acre-feet per
year to facilitate implementation of the San Luis Rey Indian Water
Right Settlement (QSA core transfer)
May 1992 PVID/MWD Land Management, Crop Rotation, and
Water Supply Test Program - yield of 186,000 acre-feet from 1992 to
1994 [PROJECT COMPLETED]
Proposed PVID/MWD Land Management, Crop Rotation, and
Water Supply Program- yield of up to 111,000 acre-feet per year
[PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT APPROVED]
Acquisition of San Diego Gas and Electric Company
properties in the Palo Verde Valley area for inclusion in the PVID/MWD
proposed program [EXECUTED]
Investments in Colorado River Water Storage Programs
June 1984 MWD/CVWD/Desert Water Agency Advance Delivery
Agreement--multi-year yield of 600,000 acre-feet based on total storage
capability [PROJECT OPERATIONAL]
October 1992 MWD/Central Arizona Water Conservation
District Demonstration Project on Underground Storage of Colorado River
Water - yield of 81,000 acre-feet [PROJECT COMPLETED]
Proposed Colorado River Storage and Conjunctive Use Programs ``with
a goal of 3 million acre-feet of collective storage and a collective
put-and-take of between 0.3 and 0.4 million acre-feet per year
Hayfield Valley [IN PROGRESS] 800,000 acre-feet of
storage, recharge and recovery of 150,000 acre-feet per year
Chuckwalla Valley [UNDER EVALUATION] 500,000 acre-feet of
storage, recharge and recovery of 150,000 acre-feet per year
Cadiz Valley [FINAL EIS RELEASED] 1 million acre-feet of
storage, recharge and recovery of 150,000 acre-feet per year including
potential withdrawal of native groundwater
Lower Coachella Valley [UNDER EVALUATION] recharge and
recovery of 100,000 acre-feet per year over a ten year cycle
Arizona [UNDER EVALUATION] 1 million acre-feet of storage
Storage and conjunctive use programs in Lower Coachella Valley and
Arizona would provide the capability of storing Colorado River water
when the Colorado River Aqueduct is being fully utilized for
operational reasons, including transport of water stored in off-
aqueduct groundwater basins.
Other Colorado River Water Measures for Improved Reservoir System
Operations and Water Conservation
Secretary of the Interior's Colorado River Interim
Surplus Guidelines [EXECUTED]
Metropolitan's Interim Surplus Guidelines Agreement with
Arizona [EXECUTED]
Proposed Metropolitan's Interim Surplus Guidelines
Agreement with Southern Nevada Water Authority [IN PROGRESS]
Secretary of the Interior's Final Rule on Offstream
Storage of Colorado River Water (Interstate Banking) [EXECUTED]
Proposed Small Offstream Water Management Reservoirs and
Associated Facilities near the All-American Canal [INITIATE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND DESIGN 2002]
Complementary
These actions being taken by Metropolitan lessen the demand for
imported water and increase water supply reliability.
Southern California investments of more than $1.2 billion
in water conservation and water recycling (includes 1.6 million ultra-
low-flush toilets, 3.2 million low-flow showerheads, and 15,500 water
efficient clothes washers)
Metropolitan investments of over $226 million to help
develop more than 151,000 acre-feet per year of additional water
supplies from local water recycling, groundwater clean-up and water
conservation programs
Metropolitan execution of 22 agreements to provide
financial assistance to projects that recover contaminated groundwater
with total contract yields of about 81,500 acre-feet per year
Metropolitan execution of 53 agreements to provide
financial assistance to projects that recycle water with total contract
yields of about 233,400 acre-feet per year
Through the development of cooperative Local Groundwater
Storage Programs, Metropolitan currently has 370,000 acre-feet of water
in storage
Water transfers involving State Water Project water with
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Semitropic Water
Storage District, and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District that can
provide between 90,000 acre-feet per year during a dry period
Considering additional water transfer agreements with
interested parties in California's Central Valley
Construction of the $2.1 billion, 800,000 acre-foot
Diamond Valley Lake storage reservoir, doubling the amount of surface
storage available in southern California
Construction of the Inland Feeder Project at an estimated
construction cost of $1.2 billion to provide greater water supply
management opportunities
These are only the highlights of the diverse programs being carried
out by Metropolitan to help meet its, the Agencies, and the State's
water supply needs. Metropolitan is committed to the Proposed
Quantification Settlement Agreement, maintaining the Colorado River
Interim Surplus Guidelines for the full interim period, and
implementing the California Plan to allow California to reduce its
dependence on Colorado River water.
Metropolitan appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to
the Subcommittee on this important matter of implementing the
California Plan. We remain available to answer any questions that
Members of the Subcommittee may have on our efforts to implement the
California Plan.
______
Statement of the Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, California
The lands within the Imperial Irrigation District hold the largest
share of California's Colorado River water apportionment. The Imperial
Irrigation District holds these water rights in trust for the
landowners. Recognizing that it would take large amounts of water to
turn a harsh desert environment into a vast agricultural empire,
Imperial Valley pioneers appropriated, under California law,
approximately seven million acre-feet of Colorado River water at the
beginning of the twentieth century.
Early settlers in the Imperial Valley constructed a canal,
following the gravity path through Mexico, so as to divert and use
water from the Colorado River. This was done without the aid of the
federal government and resulted in the cultivation of a vast area of
the southern California desert. Later, Valley residents gave up most of
their seven-million-acre-feet water right as part of a compromise that
was the foundation for the 1929 Boulder Canyon Project Act. The Act
authorized construction of Hoover Dam, the All American Canal and the
Imperial Diversion Dam. Today, IID holds a Present Perfected water
right in the amount of 2.6 million acre-feet per year. This right,
recognized by the Supreme Court, is the economic engine that drives one
of the largest food and fiber production areas in the nation.
This history means that IID holds a permanent service right to
Colorado River water and therefore does not purchase water from the
Bureau of Reclamation as do other irrigation agencies in the West. Nor
does IID have to engage in the periodic process of obtaining a renewal
of its water service contract. Furthermore, IID has fully repaid the
capital costs of those portions of its water delivery system financed
by the United States (Imperial Diversion Dam and the All American
Canal), and IID currently operates and maintains those facilities under
contract with the Department of the Interior.
Because IID's water right is senior to the Colorado River rights of
California municipal users, a tension naturally exists between the
agricultural community and the urban water users. The farmers want to
keep producing high quality food and fiber and the cities want more
water for their municipal and industrial needs. This tension is
exacerbated because California will soon be limited to 4.4 million
acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, about 750,000 thousand
acre-feet less than is currently being diverted. With that limitation,
even the existing demands on the Southern California coastal plain
cannot be adequately met without water transfers from the agricultural
sector to the urban sector. It is projected that in less than 20 years
the population of the Lower Colorado River Region, including areas in
Mexico, will increase 67 percent over 1990 numbers. This means that
there will be more than 38 million people living in the region.
All of this is happening at a time when the San Francisco Bay-Delta
is constraining the movement of northern California water to Southern
California, when endangered fish and bird species may require more
water from the Lower Colorado River system, and when there is
increasing concern over the Colorado River delta in Mexico.
For many years the Imperial Irrigation District has recognized that
it could be part of the solution to California's water problems. Over
the last 50 years the IID has proactively promoted water conservation,
investing about $160 million (1996 equivalent dollars) on water
conservation measures prior to 1988. IID estimates that more than
100,000 acre-feet of water per year have been saved as a result of
these measures. In addition, over the past several decades Imperial
Valley farmers have invested about $340 million in on-farm improvements
and water efficiency measures conserving an additional 385,000 acre-
feet annually.
In a further effort toward improving water use efficiency, IID
entered into an historic 1988 agreement with the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) to conserve approximately 110,000
acre feet per year, which is now available for diversion and use by
MWD. The water conserved for MWD has been developed through a
combination of system and on-farm efficiency measures, with the savings
verified by a panel of experts. Following implementation of the IID-MWD
agreement, IID saw that demands for water would continue to increase in
urban Southern California, and the agency approached MWD in the early
1990's about entering into another water conservation and transfer
agreement similar to the one executed in 1988. MWD, in part believing
that there would be sufficient unused apportionment water from Arizona
and Nevada through the year 2030, did not see the need for another
water conservation/transfer program. But the San Diego County Water
Authority (SDCWA) did see the need. SDCWA believed a water crisis was
imminent, knew its water demand would double by the year 2020, and
recognized that the SDCWA was junior in priority to other MWD member
agencies.
San Diego knew that market-based agricultural-to-urban transfers
would help meet Southern California's water demands. In April of 1998
IID and SDCWA entered into a water conservation and transfer agreement
for up to 200,000 acre-feet, to be developed primarily through on-farm
conservation measures. Since a great deal of the less-expensive
conservation opportunities have already been undertaken within IID,
this leaves more expensive conservation measures to be funded by the
SDCWA. Investment in these measures by San Diego is rewarded by
obtaining for a period of years conserved water from IID's very senior
water entitlement that is largely immune from shortages. On the other
hand, the IID-SDCWA agreement allows the IID farmers to farm the same
amount of land with less water, thus avoiding conservation measures
such as fallowing that would have a significant impact on the Imperial
Valley economy. The IID-SDCWA transfer agreement presents the classic
win-win solution to a very difficult resources supply problem.
Consistent with IID's long history of collaboration in programs
necessary to ensure the long term sustainability of Colorado River
water use in the southwestern United States, IID has again agreed to
assist in making water available for urban southern California through
the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). Through the QSA IID has
put its water assets on the table to help solve water supply problems
facing the Coachella Valley Water District, MWD, and SDCWA. Some of the
elements of the IID voluntary contributions in the QSA include:
1. An offer to voluntarily cap IID's entitlement at 3.1 million
acre-feet--170,000 acre-feet less than was actually used in 1997, and
300,000 acre-feet less than IID's highest annual use.
2. An offer to make available up to 300,000 acre-feet of conserved
water under long-term transfer agreements (up to 200,000 acre feet
under the SDCWA agreement and 100,000 acre feet to the Coachella
district or MWD).
3. An agreement providing that all future and current conservation
projects within IID will be deducted from the 3.1 million acre-foot
cap, including:
a) the IID/MWD 1988 agreement to conserve 110,000 acre-feet
through canal lining, system reservoirs, and other actions
b) the All American Canal lining project, which will yield
67,000 acre feet
c) the IID/SDCWA transfer of conserved water up to 200,000
acre feet
d) the IID/CVWD-MWD transfer of conserved water totaling
100,000 acre feet
e) forbearance of IID's senior right to priority 6 water
equaling 300,000 acre feet
f) forbearance of IID's senior right to priority 7 water
(unquantified surplus).
It is important to appreciate the contribution that IID is making
in order to support the QSA and the resolution of the southern
California water supply problem. As noted above, IID has in the past
used as much as 3.2 million acre-feet of Colorado River water in one
year. As a result of the QSA, IID's use will be voluntarily capped at
3.1 million acre-feet per year for the life of the QSA. From that
capped amount there will be deducted all of the conserved water to be
transferred to the urban sector, leaving IID with about 2.6--2.7
million acre-feet per year--a reduction of 700,000 to 800,000 acre-feet
annually. IID's agreement to support the water transfers and to live
for a period of years with a much smaller water supply is critical to
the success of the QSA.
However, it must be understood by the Congress and the
Administration that these contributions, and the other benefits of the
historic Quantification Settlement Agreement, cannot come to fruition
unless the extreme difficulties with both federal and state Endangered
Species Act compliance can be overcome. A solution will require support
in the form of cooperation from state and federal agencies as well as
funding and other resources. Again, IID has worked diligently to help
find solutions to these problems without unreasonably increasing the
financial burden on IID or its landowners and without harming the
economic viability of the Imperial Valley.
It is also important to emphasize that transferring water out of an
agricultural community is always controversial, primarily because water
is the lifeblood of the local community. The IID Board of Directors is
elected by all of the voters in the Imperial Valley, as opposed to just
the landowner/farmers. This means that the entire Imperial Valley
community is interested in, and directly connected to, the water
transfers and the overall judgment as to the merits of the QSA. The
people of the Imperial Valley are likely to continue to support the QSA
so long as it remains a win-win deal for all concerned. However, if
implementing the QSA results in great hardship on the Valley, or causes
negative impacts on the Valley economy, support for the water transfers
and the QSA will likely evaporate.
In summary, IID will continue to work in collaboration with others
to help find and craft solutions to California's water supply problems
so long as IID's interests are protected throughout the process. IID is
committed to following through with the implementation of the water
transfers and the QSA, but it is imperative for both Congress and the
Administration to understand that water transfers of this magnitude
will require the cooperation of the state and federal governments in
addition to the QSA parties, and that the economic security and
viability of the Imperial Valley should not be compromised simply to
provide water supply reliability for urban southern California.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Graff, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TOM GRAFF, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Mr. Graff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. There are a
lot of common themes so I am going to try to move quickly
through my testimony, and maybe we will get more exposure of
some of the complications in the Q&A period.
Just a couple things about my credentials here, such as
they are. In addition to being regional director of
Environmental Defense, I did serve for two and a half years
many years ago as a member of the Colorado River Board of
California, 1980 to 1983, and I was a participant in then
Environmental Defense Fund's publication in 1983 of a document
called, ``Trading Conservation Investments for Water,'' which
promoted many of the ideas that we have been discussing already
here at this hearing. Just by way of linkages with other
aspects of California's water situation, that was shortly after
the defeat of the peripheral canal referendum in 1982.
As my written testimony states, we give great credit to the
Federal, state and regional agencies who have been doing
remarkable work in getting us as far as they have in reaching
solutions to the Colorado River's shortage problems. And in
particular, I want to credit the voluntary conservation and
transfer agreements, particularly the recent one between San
Diego and IID and the even more remarkable Quantification
Settlement Agreement, which actually got the four agencies and
others all on one page as to how to allocated California's
limited entitlement share to Colorado River waters.
I also want to note, as has been noted already, that others
would benefit from California's implementing the California
Plan and the QSA. In particular, since we are in Nevada, I
think it is clearly in Nevada's interest that these agreements
go forward, and I just want to say, since we have
representatives both from Nevada and Utah on this panel, that
they have been among the more creative of the states of the
Basin in nudging us all toward actually considering interstate
water marketing in years to come.
But as we all know, these--I also should mention as a
potential problem, although not so much with these agreements,
in my judgment, there are very important questions about
deliveries of water to the Colorado River Delta and Gulf of
California, which are now the subject of international
agreement and further deliberation. But it is the case that, to
the extent California will get additional water in the next 15
years that it might otherwise not have gotten had all these
agreements not come into being, that the Delta could be
shorted, and that is something that should be addressed, and
presumably it will be in other forums.
I am going to get to the two other major points in my
testimony in a moment, one being the impacts of the agreements
potentially on the Salton Sea and the problems of the Salton
Sea and the issues within the community in Imperial Valley. But
I wanted to noted first agreement, I think, with the remarks
earlier of Assistant Secretary Raley and link them to the
written testimony that I provided here about the amendment that
Congressman Hansen introduced into your bill, Congressman
Calvert, which you referenced in your opening statement.
I think what both, the Assistant Secretary's remarks and
the Congressman's amendment, demonstrate is the real urgency
which we all face in trying to resolve these issues, and I will
just make a personal comment. I think these issues are more
urgent than some of the others in California over which we and
others have fought very hard, legislatively and otherwise. I
think really focused attention on the part of all the
interested parties--Federal, the states, California interests
and the environmental communities--should be focused on these
issues to try to get them resolved.
Now, what are the big ones? The big ones are the impacts of
limiting California's diversions on the Salton Sea. In recent
times, we have, within the environmental community--and I
should say, there are many environmental stakeholders here, and
I don't purport to speak for any but the Environmental
Defense--have been engaged in discussions that we hope will
lead to solutions protecting most of the environmental
resources at issue. And in particular, the concept of
generating a large fund with major contributions form the
agencies, from the State of California and from the United
States that would be used to address the environmental issues
has been winning considerable support, and I hope that a lot of
attention gets put to try to put that fund together and to
figuring out what are fair allocations of responsibility among
the disparate interests.
The socioeconomic issues in the Imperial Valley are another
story. The IID is an irrigation district and thus elected by
its residents rather than by its landowners. On the other hand,
the water rights there are ancient and go back to the
landowners themselves. And the tension I think that those two
facts creates within the Imperial Valley as to who might
benefit from these transfers and where the incentives should
run and what kinds of conservation investments should be made I
think has complicated the attitudes within that community
toward the transfer, and I think has made it particularly
complicated to close the deal, so to speak, both on the
environmental side and on the distribution of whatever
financial payments might be made side as well.
I say here in the written testimony whether Congress or the
Federal Administration can provide significant help in sorting
out these internal divisions is unclear. Perhaps all that can
be done is being done. I don't know if that is true. Commenting
a little bit on what Assistant Secretary Raley said earlier, it
is true that the seven states have been a major contributor to
bringing the ball as far down the field as it already has been
brought. There have been a lot of first downs, we are getting
near the goal line, but at this point I think it is really
incumbent upon the United States and in particular in its
dealings with the IID and environmental compliance and with the
Salton Sea authority in developing a plan for the Salton Sea to
provide leadership in getting us across the goal line. I don't
think it will be done just by the states themselves or by the
agencies themselves.
To conclude, no one ever said it would be easy to reduce
California's use of Colorado River water by 700,000 acre feet,
but with the timely establishment of a substantial
environmental mitigation and restoration fund and with
meaningful community-based reinvestment of an appropriate share
of water transfer proceeds, perhaps the California Plan will
become a model of sustainable resource management, not only in
California but for the Nation as a whole. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graff follows:]
Statement of Thomas J. Graff, Regional Director, Environmental Defense
Congressman Calvert and Members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power:
Thank you for your invitation to testify today on the
``Implementation of the California Plan for the Colorado River''. A
tremendous amount of creative and cooperative work has gone into the
preparation and implementation of the California plan for the Colorado
River at all levels of government, federal, state and regional. It is
no small achievement for a state and its subdivisions apparently to
commit to an effective reduction of 600,000-800,000 acre feet per year
in its diversions of water from any source, especially one on which it
has been dependent in some cases for over a century and in others for
sixty years and longer. Yet that is collectively what the state of
California, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Imperial
Irrigation District (IID), the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD), and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) have
done with respect to California's withdrawals from the Colorado River.
Voluntary conservation and transfer. Quantification settlement.
Innovative groundwater storage and conjunctive use. All are important
and praiseworthy aspects of the California plan.
Should California succeed in implementing its plan, many other
interests dependent on the Colorado River will have a significantly
higher probability of meeting their needs and desires. Among these
interests are the other six Colorado River Basin states. In particular,
here within the Lower Basin, Arizona's Central Arizona Project
diversions are generally junior to California's 4.4 million acre feet
entitlement and Nevada's 300,000 acre feet entitlement may not be
sufficient over the long-term to meet burgeoning growth in the greater
Las Vegas metropolitan area. Other potential beneficiaries of
California's success in implementing its Plan are the Colorado River
Basin's Indian tribes, towards whom the United States has solemn trust
responsibilities; the users of the River in Mexico, where the per
capita consumptive use of water in the region's cities is much lower
than in the United States and where economic development is surging;
and at least in the long term the environmental resources of the long
neglected Colorado River Delta and Gulf of California, whose values
have only recently been acknowledged in international negotiations and
forums (even as the Interim Surplus Guidelines may diminish the
available potential water supplies available to serve their needs).
In addition to impacting the Delta, implementation of the
California plan potentially could also bring about significant losses
within California. Of these potential losses, the most significant are
the environmental values associated with the Salton Sea and the
community's interests in the Imperial Valley. Ironically, both of these
resources are already threatened, even without implementation of the
conservation and transfer components of the California plan having yet
produced any significant effects.
Just as the various levels of government should receive appropriate
credit for the promulgation of the California plan, so should they all
bear at least partial responsibility for the current problems of the
Salton Sea and for economic inequities and hardships within the
Imperial Valley community. Unfortunately, however, acknowledgment of
these responsibilities has not proceeded with the same urgency as did
the promulgation of the California Plan. As a result, implementation of
the California plan may yet founder because there is understandable
resistance to its potential consequences arising from an environmental
community concerned most particularly about its impacts on the
incredibly diverse bird life, including the endangered pelican, who
even in today's degraded circumstances make use of the Salton Sea's
bounty. And it may founder as well because within the Imperial Valley
there are many who understandably question the adverse distributional
and economic effects that could result from implementation of the
conservation and transfer provisions of the California plan, even as
some could obtain very large financial benefits from the transfer
payments.
External pressures to address and resolve these problems are
significant. Most notably, as the Subcommittee chairman is of course
aware, his bill, H.R. 3208, designed to move forward California's other
great experiment with consensus decision-making, the CALFED process,
was recently amended in Committee mark-up by the Committee's chairman,
Congressman Hansen of Utah. The Chairman inserted a draconian provision
into H.R. 3208, section 301 (e), that would prohibit the Secretary of
the Interior from delivering to California any more than 4.4 million
acre feet of water in any year after 2016, except when the Colorado
River is in a flood avoidance circumstance. If passed into law, this
provision effectively requires California to move even faster and more
comprehensively towards 4.4 than would otherwise be the result of
implementation of the California plan. While the present California
plan is often referred to as a 4.4 plan, in its explicit terms it would
appear to commit the state only to move substantially in the direction
of 4.4, rather than actually to achieve that landmark on a regular
basis by the year 2016.
The question thus arises whether the responsible entities at all
levels of government have the intention, the will, or the means to
address the environmental and the socio-economic aspects of
California's present and future diversions of water from the Colorado
River.
In answering this question, the jury is still out. In recent
months, the four agencies who share most of California's Colorado River
rights only have recently begun to struggle seriously with the
environmental issues and to engage environmental stakeholders in
discussions that could lead to solutions protecting most of the
environmental resources at issue. In particular, the concept of
generating a large fund, with major contributions from the agencies,
from the state, and from the United States, that would be used to
address the environmental issues, has won considerable support. With
sufficient financial resources and governmental commitments, an
environmental solution, such as the one proposed by the Pacific
Institute to save the most ecologically significant aspects of the
Salton Sea on a sustainable basis, could well allow the California plan
to proceed without major adverse environmental consequences. Indeed, if
such a solution can be devised that is sustainable over a long period,
the net result may well be environmentally positive, in that the
current trend line for fish survival in the Salton Sea, absent
governmental intervention, is undoubtedly negative under virtually any
scenario.
The socio-economic issues in the Imperial Valley are another story.
Despite the fact that the Imperial Irrigation District board is an
entity elected by the community at large, unlike most agricultural
water districts in California whose boards are selected only by
landowners, the unemployment rate in Imperial Valley is high and the
income disparities great. The income generated from the conservation
and transfer arrangements that the IID has negotiated could help
address these problems if the community seizes the opportunity. Many of
the past delays in reaching consensus on the California plan, and the
more recent delays in developing environmental mitigation and
restoration plans, however, can be attributed to divisions within the
Imperial Valley community. It no doubt would be difficult for any
community to come to terms with a future in which its principal natural
resource is slated to be reduced by as much as 25 percent. But even a
future in which IID receives substantially less water can be bright, if
the community wisely deploys the financial resources that the south
coastal urban areas are providing in exchange for the water lost (at
worst, it is worth noting, the IID will still receive close to 2.5
million acre feet per year). Whether Congress or the federal
Administration can provide significant help in sorting out the internal
divisions within the Valley is unclear. Perhaps all that can be done is
being done. The United States is, after all, a full partner with IID in
the habitat conservation planning that is a prerequisite to any
solution to the California plan's environmental problems. And the
United States is also a full partner with the Salton Sea Authority in
developing a long-term plan for the Salton Sea, a partnership that
ironically also has recently involved addressing economic aspects of
the Imperial Valley's water situation, including the highly charged
issue of land fallowing.
What these partnerships reflect is the interconnectedness of the
environmental, economic, and social issues raised by California's
commitment to go on a Colorado River ``water diet''. No one ever said
it would be easy to reduce California's use of Colorado River water by
700,000 acre feet. But with the timely establishment of a substantial
environmental mitigation and restoration fund and with meaningful
community-based reinvestment of an appropriate share of water transfer
proceeds, perhaps the California plan can still become a model of
sustainable resource management, not only in California, but for the
nation as a whole.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Graff.
Mr. Caan?
STATEMENT OF GEORGE CAAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER
COMMISSION
Mr. Caan. Thank you, Chairman Calvert. I want to thank you
for the invitation to testify today. My name is George Caan,
and I am executive director of the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada. This is your second hearing on important issues related
to the Colorado River. It has been some time since a Committee
of the Congress was interested enough in the Colorado River to
convene successive hearings such as these. Thank you for the
leadership you have shown during your tenure as Chairman of the
Water and Power Subcommittee and for holding this hearing in
Las Vegas.
For over a decade, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
and the Southern Nevada Water Authority have aggressively
pursued a strategy to augment Nevada's minuscule 300,000 acre
feet entitlement to Colorado River water. As the fastest
growing community in the Nation, we recognize that although our
successful water conservation and wastewater reuse programs
would only serve to stretch our supplies, additional water
resources are critical for our survival.
In Nevada, we have learned that we cannot solve our own
problems without being involved in helping to solve those in
the other Colorado River Basin states. This is especially true
for California which consumes the largest share of the Colorado
River. For that reason we have labored for almost a decade with
the other Basin states through countless meetings to achieve
consensus among the seven Basin states around solutions which
are innovative and bold and still preserve the underlying
fabric of the Law of the River.
I want to point out at the outset that this has been a
state-driven process. We have appreciated the support and
encouragement of the Interior Department, the solutions which
have evolved all had their genesis within the seven-state
process and not in Washington.
Possibly the most difficult issue we have faced is the need
for California to wean itself away from overuse of the Colorado
and live within its 4.4 million acre foot entitlement. As you
have been shown, this will require nearly 800,000 acre feet of
reduced deliveries. The seven states developed a proposal which
allows California an assured water supply for the next 15
years, during which time it must make substantial progress with
periodic milestones to reduce its use of Colorado River water.
This assured supply comes in the form of what we call Interim
Surplus Criteria, which in layman's terms means that all the
states agree to allow the Secretary of the Interior, as water
master for the Lower Basin, to declare each year for the next
15 years, that there is enough surplus water in the reservoirs
to release an extra amount above the Lower Basin's entitlement
of 7.5 million acre feet. The surplus amount that is to be
released each year depends upon the elevation of Lake Mead.
This remarkable plan was signed by the Secretary of
Interior last January. For the first time, it schedules the
delivery of this additional water based on type of uses, with
municipal and industrial needs first, then agriculture, rather
than on the old western water law doctrine of prior
appropriation.
Nevada benefits significantly from these surplus
deliveries. Because we are an M&I delivery, the criteria will
all but ensure an adequate water supply for all of southern
Nevada's needs through 2016. Nevada shares with California
these interim supplies, and therefore we are vitally concerned
that California meet its milestone targets to ramp down usage
of Colorado River water. If California fails to do so, we will
lose our assured water supply rights along with them. In other
words, Nevada's water supply future is inextricably tied to
what occurs in California.
For that reason, Nevada has a vested interest in the
success of California internal efforts to conserve water such
as the IID to San Diego transfer as well as to develop
additional sources of supply for southern California. We
understand the relationship between the Salton Sea issue and
the IID-San Diego transfer, and we are supportive of
Representative Hunter's bill, H.R. 2764, The Colorado River
Quantification Settlement Act. While there are certainly
important details of the bill which need to be resolved, we do
support the overall premise of the bill to provide Federal
funding to assist with the Salton Sea environmental studies and
other projects needed to ensure the success of that water
transfer.
To the same end, we support your efforts, Representative
Calvert, along with those of Senator Feinstein to pass a CALFED
authorization bill providing for funding for water development
projects throughout California. These projects will help
California reduce its over dependence upon the Colorado.
During the recent markup of the CALFED bill, the Chairman
of the Resources Committee, Representative Hansen of Utah,
attached an amendment which statutorily requires that after the
15-year period covered by the interim surplus criteria, the
Secretary of the Interior must default to a conservative one-
size-fits-all operating plan for the Colorado River each year
thereafter. The Hansen amendment, while well meaning, is a very
dangerous precedent. The State of Nevada strongly believes that
the annual operating plan for the Colorado River should be
developed in an open process among the seven Basin states
working cooperatively with the Secretary of Interior and other
interested parties. This is a tried and true process which has
resulted in significant and positive operating changes to meet
future needs while doing so in harmony with the Law of the
River.
With only 300,000 acre feet of Colorado River entitlement,
Nevada has learned the importance of working with our sister
states to find river management solutions. The Arizona
Groundwater Banking Plan and the interim surplus criteria were
achieved by good faith, state-based negotiations. By locking
into Federal law a single one-size-fits-all operating plan, the
Hansen amendment would put an end to these creative state-based
solutions. The amendment returns the Colorado River wars to the
Halls of Congress. This is most unfortunate. Nevada strongly
believes Congress should let the seven Basin states determine
how to operate the Colorado River for the benefit of all.
In conclusion, Nevada's water future looks far more secure
today than it did 10 years ago. This is the result of some
significant achievements brought about by the seven Basin
states working together along with a supportive Interior
Department. There is more to do. California has just begun its
difficult task of conserving and finding enough water to meet
its needs. We face significant and important environmental
challenges such as the Endangered Fish Recovery Program,
finding a practical and affordable Salton Sea solution and
addressing the international consequences associated with the
Mexican Delta. I am confident in our ability to find more
innovative solutions, working together, and being connected.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caan follows:]
Statement of George Caan, Executive Director, Colorado River Commission
of Nevada
Introduction
Chairman Calvert, I thank you for the invitation to testify today.
My name is George Caan and I am Executive Director of the Colorado
River Commission of Nevada. This is your second hearing on important
issues relating to the Colorado River. It has been some time since a
Committee of the Congress was interested enough in the Colorado River
to convene successive hearings such as these. Thank you for the
leadership you have shown during your tenure as Chairman of the Water
and Power Subcommittee and for holding this hearing in Las Vegas.
For over a decade, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and
Southern Nevada Water Authority who is responsible for all water
resource planning and acquisition for southern Nevada purveyors, have
aggressively pursued a strategy to augment Nevada's minuscule 300,000
acre foot entitlement to Colorado river water. As the fastest growing
community in the nation, we recognized that although our successful
water conservation and wastewater reuse programs would only serve to
stretch our supplies, additional water resources are critical for our
survival.
In Nevada we have learned that we cannot solve our own problems
without being involved in helping to solve those in the other Colorado
River basin states. This is especially true for California which
consumes the largest share of the Colorado River. For that reason we
have labored for almost a decade with the other basin states through
countless meetings to achieve consensus among the seven basin states
around solutions which are innovative and bold and still preserve the
underlying fabric of the Law of the River.
I want to point out at the outset that this has been a state driven
process. We have appreciated the support and encouragement of the
Interior Department, the solutions which have evolved all had their
genesis within the seven state process and not in Washington.
Interim Surplus Criteria and the California 4.4 Plan
Possibly the most difficult issue we have faced is the need for
California to ween itself away from overuse of the Colorado and live
within its 4.4 million acre foot entitlement. This will require nearly
800,000 acre feet reduced deliveries from the amount California has
been regularly using. The seven states developed a proposal which
allows California an assured water supply for the next fifteen years
during which time it must make substantial progress with periodic
milestones to reduce its use of Colorado River water. This assured
supply comes in the form of what we call Interim Surplus Criteria,
which in layman's terms means that all the states agree to allow the
Secretary of the Interior as water master for the lower basin, to
declare each year for the next fifteen years, that there is enough
surplus water in the reservoirs to release an extra amount above the
lower basin's entitlement of 7.5 million acre feet. The surplus amount
that is to be released each year depends upon the elevation of Lake
Mead.
This remarkable plan was signed by the Secretary of Interior last
January and for the first time schedules the delivery of this
additional water based upon type of uses, with Municipal and Industrial
needs first, then agriculture, rather than on the old western water law
doctrine of prior appropriation or put another way, first in time is
first in right.
Nevada benefits significantly from these surplus deliveries.
Because we are an M&I delivery, the Interim Surplus Criteria will all
but ensure an adequate water supply for all of southern Nevada's needs
through 2016. Nevada shares with California these interim surplus
supplies and therefore are vitally concerned that California meet its
milestone targets to ramp down usage of Colorado River water. If
California fails to do so, we will lose our assured water supply rights
along with them. In other words, Nevada's water supply future is
inextricably tied to what occurs in California.
For that reason, Nevada has a vested interest in the success of
California internal efforts to conserve water such as the IID to San
Diego transfer as well as to develop additional sources of supply for
southern California. We understand the relationship between the Salton
Sea issue and the IID-San Diego transfer and we are supportive of Rep.
Duncan Hunter's bill, H.R. 2764, The Colorado River Quantification
Settlement Facilitation Act. While there are certainly important
details of the bill which need to be resolved, we support the overall
premise of the bill to provide federal funding to assist with the
Salton Sea environmental studies and other projects needed to ensure
the success of that water transfer.
To the same end we support your efforts Rep. Calvert, along with
those of Senator Dianne Feinstein to pass a CALFED authorization bill
providing for funding for water development projects throughout
California. These projects will help California reduce its over
dependence upon the Colorado. Nevada is not going to presume to tell
Californians which CALFED water projects to build or not to build, that
is up to you to fight that out amongst yourself.
Hansen Amendment
During the recent markup of the CALFED bill, the Chairman of the
Resources Committee, Representative Hansen of Utah attached an
amendment which statutorily requires that after the fifteen year period
covered by the interim surplus criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
must default to a conservative ``70-R'' operating plan for the Colorado
River each year thereafter. The Hansen amendment, while well meaning,
is a very dangerous precedent. The State of Nevada strongly believes
that the annual operating plan for the Colorado River should be
developed in an open process among the seven basin states working
cooperatively with the Secretary and other interested parties. This is
a tried and true process which has resulted in significant and positive
operating changes to meet future needs while doing so in harmony with
the Law of the River.
With only 300,000 acre feet of Colorado River entitlement, Nevada
has learned the importance of working with our sister states to find
river management solutions. The Arizona groundwater banking plan and
the interim surplus criteria were achieved by good faith, state based
negotiations. By locking into federal law a single, one size fits all
operating plan that maximizes storage in basin reservoirs, the Hansen
amendment would put an end to these creative state based solutions.
The Hansen amendment returns the Colorado River wars to the Halls
of Congress. The other basin states, especially California have
necessarily felt the need to respond to the Hansen amendment with
legislative amendments of their own. This is most unfortunate. Nevada
strongly believes Congress should let the Seven Basin states determine
how to operate the Colorado River for the benefit of all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Nevada's water future looks far more secure today
than it did ten years ago. This is the result of some significant
achievements brought about by the seven basin states working together
along with a supportive Interior Department. There is more to do.
California has just begun its difficult task of conserving and finding
enough water to meet its needs. We face significant and important
environmental challenges such as the endangered fishes recovery
program, finding a practical and affordable Salton Sea solution and
addressing the international consequences associated with the Mexican
Delta. I am confident in our ability to find more innovative solutions,
working together, connected. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Zimmerman?
STATEMENT OF GERALD R. ZIMMERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO
RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Zimmerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I am Gerry Zimmerman, the executive director of the
Colorado River Board of California. I guess either fortunately
or unfortunately being last on the panel, everybody has said
what you wanted to say. But what I want to do is highlight a
few of the comments that have been made by previous presenters
and to focus on the importance of the Colorado River to
California. The water and power resources provided by the
Colorado River are vital to California's economy. Seven
counties in southern California comprise 17 million people.
About half of the State's population receive both water and
power from the Colorado River, and recently the up to 5.2
million acre feet of water that has been diverted from the
Colorado River represents about 65 percent of the water used
within southern California. That water is used to irrigate
about 900,000 acres of irrigated cropland, it produces 3.5
billion kilowatt hours of hydroelectric energy, and it supports
vital fish and wildlife and recreational resources enjoyed by
Californians as well as people from other states and other
countries.
The Colorado River supports a service area economy of
southern California in excess of $400 billion. The entire State
has benefited both directly, indirectly by California's ability
under the existing Law of the River to use more than its 4.4
million acre-foot basic apportionment. In 1991 and 1992, as
California faced its fifth and sixth consecutive years of
drought, the entities within southern California were able to
divert all of the water that they had requested from the
Colorado River. Had they not been able to do that there would
have been more severe rationing within southern California.
In the future, if the Metropolitan Water District of
southern California is unable to maintain a full Colorado River
aqueduct, more pressure will be placed on the State water
project and related facilities. That will impact the Central
Valley and the San Francisco and San Jose areas. This year,
without a surplus on the Colorado River, as has been mentioned,
California's ability to use water within southern California
would have been reduced by 700,000 acre feet of water. That
could have economic impacts on all of California, not just
southern California.
If we look at the State water project and the water that is
provided by that project this year, the State water project
contractors were limited to 39 percent of their State water
project allocation. If the drought continues next year, you are
looking at a possibility of a 20 percent allocation from the
State water project. I think this emphasizes that the Colorado
River and maintaining a full Colorado River aqueduct is very
important to southern California and California as a whole.
If we look at the Colorado River Plan, as Maureen has
generally explained, that plan was developed by the Colorado
River Board of California in 1997. A more comprehensive draft
then was released to the Colorado River Basin states in May of
2000. We are holding finalizing that plan until after the
Quantification Settlement Agreement is signed and after all the
environmental compliance with the projects related to the plan
is completed. We are holding off doing that so that we can
incorporate all of that date information into the final plan.
I would just say that we are making significant progress in
implementation of the plan. As has been indicated, the State of
California has provided $235 million to assist in implementing
the plan--$200 million for lining the all-American Coachella
canals and $35 million for groundwater conjunctive use project,
alongside the Metropolitan's Colorado River aqueduct. Funding
agreements have been executed between Metropolitan Water
District and the State of California for the Coachella lining
canal, or lining project, as well as for the Hayfield project
alongside the Colorado River aqueduct.
As has been indicated by the state representatives, each of
the state representatives support implementation of the
Colorado River Water Use Plan, as does the Department of
Interior.
At this time, there are three critical items that I see
have to be solved. The first is execution of the Quantification
Settlement Agreement by December 31, 2002. We also have to have
continued operation of the Colorado River system reservoirs
under the Interim Surplus Criteria. And, third, we have to be
able to implement the elements of California's Colorado River
Water Use Plan in accordance to the schedule, as contained in
that plan.
The challenge facing implementation of the plan, as has
been raised by others today, is the Salton Sea and the State
and Federal ESA issues. Maureen has indicated the temporal
impact that the water transfers have on the Salton Sea, so I
won't go into those. What I would also highlight is the
relationship between the Quantification Settlement Agreement
and the Interim Surplus Criteria. The Record of Decision on the
Interim Surplus Criteria contains milestones that the State of
California must meet in order to keep the Interim Surplus
Criteria in place. The first milestone is December 31, 2002,
execution of the Quantification Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Chairman, rather than take any more time, what I would
like to do is conclude by saying that the Colorado River plays
a very important role in maintaining a stable water supply
picture, not only for southern California but for the State as
a whole. Implementation of Colorado River's Water Use Plan and
the associated Quantification Settlement Agreement and the core
water transfer are a priority within California and a
prerequisite for southern California to be able to meet its
water supply needs. If a Quantification Settlement Agreement is
not executed by December 31, 2002, the Interim Surplus Criteria
face suspension. That suspension would result in about 700,000
acre feet of water to the coastal plain of southern California
being lost as early as 2003. Such a large shortage would result
in severe economic impacts that would be felt throughout
California and the Southwest.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before this Committee today, and I know that working together
we will be able to make a difference.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmerman follows:]
Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado River
Board of California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I will discuss the importance
of the Colorado River to California, as well as, the progress being
made and the challenges being faced by Californians in reducing their
water supply needs from the Colorado River to fit within California's
annual apportionment of Colorado River water.
The Colorado River Board
The Colorado River Board of California was established in 1937 by
State statute to protect California's rights and interest in the
resources provided by the Colorado River and to represent California in
discussions and negotiations regarding the Colorado River and its
management. The 10 members that sit on the Colorado River Board are
appointed by the Governor and include the directors of the Departments
of Water Resources and Fish and Game. The Chairman of the Colorado
River Board is California's Colorado River Commissioner.
Importance of the Colorado River
California's rights and interests in the water and power resources
of the Colorado River System are vital to the State's economy. Seven
counties in Southern California, with a population of over 17 million,
more than half of the state's population, receive water and
hydroelectric energy from the Colorado River. Recently, up to 5.2
million acre-feet (maf) of Colorado River water per year have been
consumed by California's municipal, industrial, and agricultural
interests in a year. This represents about 65 percent of the total
water used in Southern California. The Colorado River provides a water
supply for about 900,000 acres of irrigated agriculture and is a
supplemental or sole source of water for over 17 million people in
Southern California. In addition, it provides California residents
about 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours of hydroelectric energy a year, as
well as, supports vital fish, wildlife and recreational resources
enjoyed by Californians and residents from other states and countries.
Water received from the Colorado River supports a service area economy
in Southern California in excess of $400 billion.
Much of the area within California served by the Colorado River has
no other significant water supply. The river supports agricultural
water users in the southeastern portion of the State--providing
virtually all of the water used by Imperial Irrigation District (IID),
Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), and the Yuma Project, as well as
most of the water used by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The
River supports urban water users on the Southern California coastal
plain, an area that includes parts of six counties and half of the
State's population. Approximately 60 percent of the coastal plain's
water supplies have been imported from elsewhere during the past 10
years--from the Central Valley by the California State Water Project,
from the Mono Basin-Owens River area by the City of Los Angeles
Aqueducts, and from the Colorado River by Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California's (MWD's) Colorado River Aqueduct. Of the
imported supply water supply to the coastal plain during the past 10
years, over 50 percent of the total has come from the Colorado River.
California's basic annual mainstream apportionment of Colorado
River water is 4.4 million acre-feet (maf), whereas its use of Colorado
River water has recently ranged from 4.5 to 5.2 maf per year. The
entire State has benefitted both directly and indirectly from
California's ability under the existing ``Law of the River'', to obtain
water above its basic mainstream apportionment. In 1991 and 1992, as
California faced its fifth and sixth consecutive years of severe
drought, while other water sources were curtailed, entities in
California were able to divert all of the water that they requested or
could transport from the Colorado River to meet the needs within their
service areas. Had MWD's water supply from the Colorado River been
limited, significantly higher levels of mandatory water rationing would
have been required in portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura Counties served by MWD. Such
rationing would have resulted in significant economic impacts to the
region. In the future, if MWD's Colorado River water supply were to be
significantly reduced, additional pressure would be placed on the State
Water Project and related water systems to meet the water supply
demands within MWD's service area. This could result in significant
impacts in the Central Valley of California and the San Francisco and
San Jose areas.
In the past, California was able to consumptively use water above
its basic annual apportionment because the water use by both Arizona
and Nevada were below their ``basic'' annual apportionments. Those
states now use all, or nearly all, of their basic apportionments,
effectively ending California's ability to use water above its basic
apportionment of 4.4 maf, absent a surplus condition being declared by
the Secretary of the Interior. This year, without a surplus condition
being declared by the Secretary of the Interior, California's use of
Colorado River water could have been limited to its 4.4 maf basic
apportionment, some 700,000 acre-feet less than its current use of
Colorado River water. Because agricultural districts in California hold
the senior water rights, almost all of this reduction would have fallen
on MWD and urban Southern California. A reduction in water supply of
this magnitude could have huge consequences, not only on 17 million
people residing on the coastal plain of Southern California, but on
other regions of California as well.
This year, because of the drought in California and the west, the
State Water Contractors including the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California have received only 39 percent of their allocation
from the State Water Project. With the prolonged drought, their
allocation for 2002 is currently estimated to be 20 percent. With these
reductions it is critical that MWD maintain a full Colorado River
Aqueduct to continue to meet its water supply demands on the coastal
plain.
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan
Recognizing that urban Southern California could be without an
assured water supply, the former Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, Bruce Babbitt, and representatives of the other Colorado
River Basin states in 1997 called upon California to develop a plan
that addresses how Southern California intends to continue to meet its
water supply needs when its use of Colorado River water is limited to
its ``basic'' apportionment. In return for development and
implementation of such a plan, the Secretary and representatives from
the other Colorado River Basin states indicated their willingness to
consider the adoption of surplus criteria that would assist California
in meeting its Colorado River water supply needs for an interim period
while California implements elements of its plan. With California's
plan and more optimal surplus criteria for operating the Colorado River
reservoir system, the probability of more than 7.5 maf of water being
available annually for use by California and the other Lower Basin
states is enhanced.
The first draft of what is now being called California's Colorado
River Water Use Plan (Plan) was released by the Colorado River Board in
December of 1997. A revised, more comprehensive draft was released by
the Board on May 11, 2000. The draft Plan calls for a number of
programs to be implemented within California and in cooperation with
the other Basin states that allow the water supply needs of Southern
California to continue to be met from within its annual apportionment
of Colorado River water.
The overall purpose of the Plan is to provide California's Colorado
River water users with a framework by which programs, projects, and
other activities will be coordinated and cooperatively implemented,
thus allowing California to most effectively satisfy its annual water
supply needs from within its annual apportionment of Colorado River
water. This framework specifies how California will transition from its
current use of water and live within its basic apportionment of
Colorado River water as conditions on the River so dictate.
The components of the Plan are broad in scope and deal with both
water quantity and quality. It is intended to help bring certainty to
all California Colorado River water right holders as to the reliability
of their Colorado River supply so that they can plan, finance, and
implement other required measures in a timely manner to fully meet
their water supply and management needs. It is founded on interagency
cooperation, and embraces regional approaches and consensus-based
processes. It is intended to be fully consistent with the existing
``Law of the River'' and to foster greater levels of interstate
cooperation and coordination in addressing Colorado River matters of
mutual interest.
The Plan encompasses:
further quantification of California's rights and use of
Colorado River water to facilitate the optimum use of California's
Colorado River resources,
cooperative core water supply programs and voluntary
transfers,
increased efficiencies in water conveyance and use,
water storage and conjunctive use programs to increase
normal and dry year water supplies,
water exchanges and transfers,
administrative actions necessary for effective use and
management of water supplies,
improved reservoir management and operations,
drought and surplus water management plans,
coordinated project operations for increased water supply
yield,
groundwater management,
Colorado River salinity control and watershed protection,
and
addressing environmental impacts
The Plan will remain in draft form pending completion of the
environmental reviews and the subsequent execution of agreements
associated with the Plan, such as the proposed Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA).
Time-Sensitive Actions
Critical to successful implementation of California's Colorado
River Water Use Plan and for California to continue to meet its
Colorado River water supply needs from within it annual apportionment
of Colorado River water are: 1) execution of the proposed QSA; 2)
continued operation of the Colorado River System reservoirs under the
Interim Surplus Guidelines; and 3) implementation of the proposed core
water transfers.
Water districts in California holding Colorado River water
contracts have formulated the QSA to implement vital components of
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan. The QSA further quantifies
the districts' water entitlements and provides for the implementation
of certain core water transfers, such as the IID/San Diego County Water
Authority's transfer of up to 200,000 acre-feet of water per year, as
well as facilitates other transfers, such as the proposed PVID/MWD's
Land Management, Crop Rotation, and Water Supply Program. Although
progress is being achieved to complete the required environmental
documentation for the QSA, the process cannot be completed until issues
involving the Salton Sea are resolved. When the Key Terms for
Quantification Settlement were negotiated by the water districts, it
was assumed that the process directed by the Salton Sea Reclamation Act
of 1998 would have been completed and Congress would have made a
determination as to the Sea's future. This has not happened and if it
remains unresolved, it could bring about the demise of the QSA and the
core water transfers that would bring needed water to residents on the
coastal plain of Southern California.
In an effort to address this Salton Sea dilemma, discussions among
representatives from the State of California, the affected California
agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the environmental community are occurring in an attempt to
find a solution. Despite the efforts of the stakeholders, an
administrative solution has not yet been identified and the solution
may require federal legislation. However, through these discussions, it
has become apparent by all parties that the proposed water transfers
have a temporal effect of one to nine years on an already deteriorating
Sea and that the Sea, in a period of seven to 22 years, will be
incapable of supporting a fishery without reclamation, regardless of
whether the transfers occur or not. It is also recognized that
execution of the QSA is critical for the successful implementation of
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan.
The State of California has placed a high priority on
implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan and the
associated QSA. The State Legislature has appropriated $235 million to
assist with implementation of the Plan; $200 million for the concrete
lining of portions of the All-American and Coachella Canals and $35
million for ground water storage and retrieval projects near MWD's
Colorado River Aqueduct. The Final EIS/EIRs for both the All-American
and Coachella Canal lining projects have been completed and the Funding
Agreement between the State of California and MWD for the Coachella
Canal has been executed. The Funding Agreement between the State of
California and MWD for the Hayfield Ground Water Storage and Retrieval
Project has also been executed.
To address outstanding issues at the State level that may impede
successful implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan
and the associated QSA, a broad-based group of stakeholders has been
formed. This Group, chaired by Ms. Mary Nichols, Secretary for
California's Resources Agency, is addressing issues related to the
Salton Sea, the California Endangered Species Act, and the Fully
Protected Species provisions in the California Fish and Game Code.
State legislative hearing have been held on November 7, 2001and
December 5, 2001, to discuss solutions to these issues. It is
anticipated that State legislation addressing these issues will be
introduced in January 2002 with an urgency provision to permit the
legislation to become effective in 2002.
Representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin states have
supported implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan
through development of the Interim Surplus Guidelines for operation of
the Colorado River System reservoirs. These Guidelines were a product
of negotiations among representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin
states and were submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation for its
consideration. They provide California with the means, over 15 a year
period, when coupled with other elements of California's Colorado River
Water Use Plan, to transition from its present use of Colorado River
water to being able to meet its water supply needs from within its
basic apportionment of 4.4 maf. They also provide the other Basin
states with certain protections and assurances that California will
perform by establishing a series of milestones. The first such
milestone occurs on December 31, 2002. If the QSA is not executed by
that date, the Interim Surplus Guidelines face suspension and very
conservative reservoir operating criteria, in terms of delivering
surplus water to California and the other Lower Basin states, will take
effect. Under such criteria and with the low runoff conditions in the
Colorado River Basin the past two years, the probability that surplus
water will be available for use in California in 2003 is highly
improbable.
Conclusions
The Colorado River plays a very important role in maintaining a
stable water supply picture for not only Southern California, but for
the State as a whole. Implementation of California's Colorado River
Water Use Plan and the associated QSA and core water transfers are a
priority within California and a prerequisite to meeting Southern
California's water supply needs. If the QSA is not executed by December
31, 2002, the Interim Surplus Guidelines face suspension. That
suspension would result in a loss of about 700,000 acre-feet of water
to the coastal plain of Southern California as soon as 2003. Such a
large water shortage could result in severe economic impacts that would
be felt throughout California and the southwest.
Thank-you for providing me the opportunity to testify before this
Subcommittee. Working together, we can make a difference.
______
Mr. Calvert. Appreciate your testimony, Mr. Zimmerman.
I want to apologize to Ms. Napolitano and Ms. Bono. I
understand they had opening statements, and so at this time we
would recognize Ms. Napolitano for her opening statement and
then Mrs. Bono, and then we will have some questions.
Ms. Napolitano.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will make mine
very brief. Coming from southern California, you understand the
need for us to be forever vigilant, which southern California
itself has worked tremendously on meeting a lot of the
challenges, and you talk about municipal users and some of my
water companies. And so to those that would continue to tell us
in California that we are not living up to our agreement to try
to conserve, to try reduce the usage, the fact that we have
some of the best methodology that has been developed in
southern California for recycled water and other conservation
issues, I would beg them to consider that we cannot stop the
flow of people coming to live in southern California. Because
it has been suggested at one time or another by some former
colleagues in the State that we should stop the building and
the attractiveness to people from other states. As you all
know, we do have that, unfortunately, or fortunately, because
they have been a boon to our economy.
I would say, though, that while California continues on the
road to try to meet those obligations, that we get all the
assistance we can so that we are able to meet the 2016 four by
four plan. Considering all the other things that we have, and
one of the things that I certainly want to pose a question to
the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Interior is if we
are not able to meet the deadline, December 31 of next year,
for the QSA, can we postpone or, if the attempt has been made
to meet that, would there be some assurance that we won't be
penalized?
Certainly, California cannot afford the immediate reduction
by that amount of water, and understanding that our economy
reaches out to the neighboring states so that if we suffer so
do the rest of the other states around us. And I certainly have
those questions in mind, would certainly love to hear what some
of the answers would be. Being fair, being, yes, OK, we are
attempting to reduce it. I know my munis have. And many others,
especially in the San Diego area, I know they have. They have
gone through tremendous conservation and other kind of save the
water, if you will, programs. So I look forward to hearing what
some of the answers can be. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mrs. Bono.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, first of all, want to
thank you for your leadership on these issues and being such a
great friend to the Salton Sea. I am happy to submit my
statement for the record, if that is all right with you, and
move ahead to the questions when you are ready.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bono follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Thank you for holding this important hearing on the implementation
of the California plan for the Colorado River.
All of us agree that California must take meaningful steps towards
reducing its usage on Colorado River water. The Quantification
Settlement Agreement is the key component to do just this. A
combination of conservation efforts and water transfers will go a long
way towards meeting this mandate.
However, as we go about this process, I believe we cannot overlook
the environmental impact certain aspects of the QSA will have on the
Salton Sea. Too often, California's fractious history of water politics
has forsaken long term stability for short term gains. One need only
look to Owen's Valley to see how the lack of planning can lead to
costly financial and health consequences which we are struggling with
today. Therefore, while I am well aware of the ramifications of NOT
implementing the QSA, I also believe there are unintended impacts from
implementing this agreement without considering some mitigation
measures.
One possible casualty in the full implementation of the QSA is the
Salton Sea. Rest assured that my intentions in bringing this to the
committee's attention do not have as much to do with maintaining the
Sea's current level or formation, but rather is focused on securing the
overall health and quality of life of the human population in the
surrounding area of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys.
This summer, the stench from the Salton Sea reached out about a
hundred miles. I have not been assured that the impacts of the QSA,
which will have a dramatic impact on the Sea, will not cause
considerable harm to the air quality in this region.
While I support and understand the needs of urban communities in
Southern California to receive water, I cannot overlook the needs of
the constituents of the Coachella Valley who must live in these
conditions and whose livelihoods depend on a tourist industry so vital
to our community. I cannot imagine anyone who would want to live or
vacation in an area which is subject to air pollution of the magnitude
we suffered this past summer. Therefore, my concerns extend far beyond
the harm water transfers may have on just the eco-system.
I am very appreciative of a general consensus to authorize $60
million of federal funding for the Salton Sea. These Congressional
monies will help address a variety of environmental needs. Still,
without confronting the dilemma of the Sea losing a significant amount
of water, I believe we have not dealt with the most crucial issue at
hand. It is unwise to delay the resolution of this problem for a later
date when we have the responsibility to address it now.
Rest assured that I believe we can move ahead with water transfers
and successfully restore the Salton Sea. There are several proposals
out there worthy of our consideration and it is my hope that we can
take the time to actively review and debate them.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for
allowing me to attend. I look forward to working with you on this
important issue.
______
Mr. Calvert. You are a very wise woman. Thank you.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your excellent
testimony, and I guess if there is any word that would come out
of all of this is the word, ``urgency,'' because we are bumping
up against a deadline 1 year from today on the Quantification
Settlement Agreement. And, obviously, we have heard of dire
consequences if in fact we are not able to ratify this
agreement by December of 2002. And so since we have the
gentleman who will probably dole out those dire consequences, I
thought you might want to comment on that, Secretary Raley. How
important is it that we finish this agreement, and what are the
consequences?
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, this matter of the highest
importance to the Secretary. The Secretary is acutely aware of
her responsibilities as the water master in the lower river.
The Secretary will enforce the decree in Arizona v. California,
and the Secretary will stay on the course for the California
Plan as put forth in the plan, the Interim Surplus Criteria and
the implementation agreement. Should that outcome not come to
pass, the Secretary will have to use all means at her disposal
to ensure that she is in compliance with the Law of the River.
Mr. Calvert. That is a pretty direct answer. It seems that
from the testimony, obviously, one issue that certainly Mrs.
Bono and I and others have been living with for some number of
years is the Salton Sea, and it is a incredibly complex
problem, and how we are going to resolve that is still open.
And that is the problem. We have 1 year, and we had some
difficulties working with the Department of Interior coming up
with a preferred solution, as you are aware, and that was put
off for some time. And we are really not quite there yet. Do
you have any comment about that, Mr. Raley?
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, the alternatives will be out in
draft form by the Bureau of Reclamation shortly, and the Bureau
of Reclamation is also going through a public process,
including an intensive public process in the Imperial Valley.
And we will be on track to meet the requirements of the act
regarding the Salton Sea.
Mr. Calvert. Now, when you mention options, are you going
to have a preferred option? I mean when you present those
various options, are you going to present one that you prefer
over the others?
Mr. Raley. Not having studied the report nor consulted with
the Secretary on this--and I want everyone to understand she
takes a personal interest in this matter, in all matters on the
Colorado River, so we talk about it frequently--I cannot commit
to a specific answer. However, I will be blunt with you, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Committee, as I will always try to
be, and suggest that it is very likely that what the Department
will do is to transfer that report with as full of discussion
of the alternatives as possible to Congress and yield to the
greater wisdom of the Congress, given that Congress is the one
that passes the budget, and the House in particular, as to
which one it chooses to select. But I could surprise you.
Mr. Calvert. You are going to punt it back over to us.
Mr. Raley. Yes, sir. Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
Mr. Raley. I meant what I said very seriously. In terms of
we all know that whatever the solution to the Salton Sea is,
and there will be a solution, that it is going to ultimately be
driven by funds. And we recognize the role of the House of
Representatives, and Congress in particular and Congress in
general, in terms of passing the budget.
Mr. Calvert. Well, it is funds and, as you are aware,
water. We have a salinity issue in the sea, and make-up water
is the terminology that has been used by some. And whether or
not that has been official use of water, whether we can do
that, that is another subject. But we have to resolve that in 1
year, and so in order for us to move on with these water
transfers, as I recognize and I think everyone on this
recognizes, is an ongoing reality in California, not just in
the Imperial County, and we will certainly probably have
transfers in other parts of the State of California as part of
the water solution--and I emphasize part of the water solution.
I know recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. How much time did you say we have?
Mr. Calvert. Five minutes for--well, we will just go back
and forth.
Ms. Napolitano. Per person? I have a lot of questions, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for the time. You are saying that the
Secretary has indicated she is going to follow the letter of
the Law of the River if the QSA is not met by next December,
correct?
Mr. Raley. The Secretary will stay the course in the
present agreements if those are not--
Ms. Napolitano. That is following the letter of the law.
Mr. Raley. And if the outcome, the far preferable outcome
that is envisioned by that collection of agreements can't be
achieved, she will follow the Law of the River.
Ms. Napolitano. OK. Now, what would you think Congress must
do to carry out the QSA and help California meet the goal? If
we are saying, ``California, without exception, you must meet
it,`` but how can you help us meet it?
Mr. Raley. Well, first of all, in terms of how the
Department can help, I can tell you that at the highest levels
in the Department, starting with the Secretary and within her
personal staff, we are treating the deadlines with respect to
the California Plan and the Quantification Settlement Agreement
as being now. We have asked the agencies, primarily the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to consider
the deadlines as being now, and they have done so. In fact,
tonight I will be meeting with other members of the Federal
family to make sure that we do our best to have one voice
within the Federal agencies, and I have told the nominee for
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks from your
great State of California that if he is confirmed by the
Senate, I have asked for some of his time 5 minutes after he is
sworn in to talk about this very important issue. So we are
committed to finding a way through the Federal side of the
equation.
Now, in my remarks, you may have noticed a distinct absence
of detail with respect to how California implements certain
aspects of the overall plan, notably how the water rights
transfers are structured, how the water actually ends up to the
intended beneficiaries. Our view of that is that to the maximum
extent possible we would like for the California parties to
figure out that between themselves. And we do that because they
are the ones with the greatest incentive to make this work.
In response to your question of what Congress can do, we
have said publicly that we do not want to see any option off
the table. From an administrative standpoint, we are working
hard on a Section 10 solution to the issues associated with the
Salton Sea. We are prepared to consider a Section 7 solution
for purposes of addressing Federal ESA laws--Federal ESA needs,
understanding that that is not preferred, because it doesn't
provide the cleanest way for California to meet the
requirements of its California Endangered Species Act and Fully
Protected Species Act. It may be that Congress will have to act
with respect to the implementation of the California Plan and
its compliance with the Endangered Species Act. We do not know
yet.
Ms. Napolitano. Then there is another question that this
may not address, and that is the issue of salinity on the
Colorado, where most of the lands, I would say a large portion,
are Federal lands adding to the salinity of the river. What
does the Department of Interior intend to do to help reduce
that so the costs then borne by the agencies to clean the water
could then be used to address the issue of cutting down on the
water usage?
Mr. Raley. Congresswoman, I just recently, as of this
morning on the plane, reviewed some documents on that, and the
point that they made was that the Bureau of Land Management
within the Department of the Interior plays a key role, and I
do not know if the Assistant Secretary has been confirmed. She
had not when I left the office last week. That is an issue that
I intend to raise with her and with the BLM Director as soon as
they are in place and have found their offices, because I well
understand the importance of the salinity issue to the entire
Basin.
Right now, my understanding is is that the Upper Basin is
delivering water that is far in excess of the requirements, if
you will, of the structure of the salinity compliance on the
Colorado River, but that the economic consequences of treating
at the using end as opposed to avoiding salinity contributions
at the contributing end, it is perhaps a far better investment
to do that, and I can promise you that we will be working with
you and other stakeholders in the Lower Basin to figure out how
to do that most effectively.
Ms. Napolitano. And I will take that as a very good yes to
putting this as a priority.
Mr. Raley. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. The other issue would be on Moab
and the danger of having a contaminated uranium tailings mine
effluent hitting the Colorado River and its effect on the water
users, and that would include all the Basin states. And how are
the agencies going to address it by allowing us to move the
pile, which I think we are having a hearing coming up pretty
soon on that. And I think the State has come up with some
findings which are generally no findings. It is just a rehash
of apparently what has been studied before. And I think it is
going to dump it back on the lap of Congress. To me, if
anything were to happen, then forget us having portable water
or at least adding cost to be able to clean that water from
contaminants. Is anything being done or are you adding that to
your mix?
Mr. Raley. Congresswoman, I will not pretend. Since I have
come on board, I have been so fully consumed by Clamoth, Bay
Delta, the California Plan, the Mexican Delta and some other
states, I am aware of that issue, but I do not know what the
current state of play is. I will find out and we will get back
to you.
Ms. Napolitano. I appreciate it. Well, there is a--I can
give you a little bit of a thumbnail sketch, but I won't do
that now; I will do it privately. That is a great concern to
all of us, but I certainly look forward to working with you and
your staff precisely on the issues that affect our communities
in southern California, since we utilize some say 65 percent of
the water. I was under the impression it was a third, but
nevertheless, that is an important part of our economy, and I
certainly want to be sure that we work with the agencies. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Great. We will have several rounds of
questions. Mrs. Bono?
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your
letting me participate today even though I am not a member of
your Subcommittee. I can't help but think as I sit here the
Salton Sea and the plan, QSA, all of this, I kind of liken it
to open heart surgery. And open heart surgery is a very
wonderful thing, but it leaves a scar. And everything is right
about open heart surgery. Many lives have been saved and
qualities of life have been improved, but there is still a huge
scar. And the scar in this is going to be the Salton Sea, and
this is my fear.
And I believe people have a misunderstanding about my
passion for the Salton Sea. And I believe I read in print Ms.
Stapleton saying that if it weren't my late husband's passion,
that it wouldn't be my passion either, and I disagree with that
statement. I care as every Member of Congress who has cared
about the Salton Sea and what happens there, but I don't
believe there has been a thorough understanding of where the
Salton Sea ought to go and what it ought to be, and does it
necessarily need to be at the same level it is at now. I don't
believe we have those answers yet, but it has been my concern
and my hope that as we look at a $500 million increase, as
suggested by the Salton Sea Authority, at least a $500 million
increase in the solution to the Salton Sea, that we could
hopefully address a lot of the consequences now that we know
are going to occur. We only have to look back 100 years to
Owen's Valley to look at what happened there to know that these
things are going to happen in the Coachella Valley.
Nobody has talked about nor addressed air quality. Mr.
Secretary, I would love to hear your thoughts on air quality
surrounding the Salton Sea after these water transfers go
through, and if there isn't anything we ought to be doing now
so we are not revisiting and putting sprinkler systems in in
the future as they are now in Owen's Valley. Have you looked at
air quality concerning the transfers and what the impact will
be for the residents of Coachella Valley?
Mr. Raley. Congresswoman, your letter to the Secretary very
effectively raised that to both her attention and to mine. And
since then I have seen additional information so I would
characterize my knowledge on that as being limited but growing.
I am also, however, either blessed or cursed, I am not sure
which, just being in the Department of Interior. And as you
know, air quality is a matter primarily for the states and the
Environmental Protection Agency. And while I have met with some
of the EPA management that work for Governor Whitman, this is
not something I have had an opportunity to discuss with him.
Ms. Bono. OK. So we don't know is your answer. Ms.
Stapleton, to you as well. And, second, actually to either of
you, to tag onto that, can you just tell me who would be liable
for air quality issues when the people of Coachella Valley--
right now we live through, I am guessing, 12, 15 days of, I
hate to call it a stench, but I don't know a better word for
it. It is horrible, and I know you don't live there, and you
certainly don't, so it is a stench. It is a sickening stench.
So if we now have this order twice as often, three times as
often, still we don't have those answers. So who will be
responsible for that?
Ms. Stapleton. A couple things. No. 1 is mitigation, the
mitigation issue relates to the water agencies and the water
transfer as opposed to a restoration issue or an existing
condition. Related to the dust storm issue, actually that is
part of the environmental review process. My understanding is
that the research that has been done on that element indicates
that dust storms related to the receding of the sea are highly
unlikely because of the salt crust as well as the composition
of the soil that is underneath the salt itself.
Ms. Bono. Excuse me for 1 second. I cannot believe that.
And I would love for you to send that to me. So you are saying
that you are saying that this is highly unlikely that there
will be an increased exposure to airborne particulate.
Ms. Stapleton. Right.
Ms. Bono. Erol Sea, Owen's Valley, these are not precedents
that we can look to, but the Salton Sea is different.
Ms. Stapleton. Right, that it is different and there has
been analyses. And, absolutely, that is part of the
environmental review process. They must look at air quality
issues related to it. And what I understand is coming out of
that is that based upon the analysis of the soil composition,
the particle size, the salt crust, composition of the water of
the Salton Sea, it is dramatically different than--
Ms. Bono. Does that equal stench? Is that scientific word
for--is that--then you are also saying you are confident the
stench won't be dramatically worse?
Ms. Stapleton. I do not know related to the odor issues
around the Salton Sea and if that would improve, decrease or
remain the same, but I do know that the air quality has to be a
component of the environmental review for both the EIR and the
EIS.
Ms. Bono. So we still don't know. I think my 5 minutes--I
think I am at about 30 seconds so far.
Mr. Calvert. We can keep rotating.
Ms. Bono. It is Las Vegas. It is 24 hours. The lights are
always on. Mr. Graff, in your testimony, you talked about--I
scribbled it down up here somewhere, excuse me 1 second. You
talked about the Pacific Institute solution to dike off
portions of the sea and to save those that are environmentally
sensitive areas and let the rest die or go. And to me that is
sort of, again, another medical analogy. You want to amputate
your elbow to save your hand. We are going to let the bulk of
the sea die, and I don't quite understand that, and I would
love to hear your thoughts on that proposal.
Mr. Graff. Well, I would answer it in two ways. First, I
don't think it is death. It is a different environment. Hyper-
saline environments elsewhere, Great Salt Lake and Mona Lake,
to take two examples, are not dead; they are different. But I
think the real answer is that there are limited resources,
particularly financial resources at all levels--Federal, state
and regional--to address these issues. And, realistically, we
have had, I don't know, many decades of not addressing the
Salton Sea as its conditions have degraded, and I think the
Pacific Institute ought to be commended for proposing a
solution that address many of the ongoing issues and projected
further degradation in ways that potentially would bring
sustainable solutions for many of those resources. Admittedly,
there are problems. I don't think there are any perfect
solutions out there, but I haven't seen any other proposals
that meet as many of the environmental requirements as the
Pacific Institute has put out at a reasonable cost.
Ms. Bono. But isn't that sort of assuming that it would
meet environmental requirements? This is a hypothesis, but it
hasn't been tried. Brown pelicans are going to know the
difference between--that the good areas of the sea aren't going
to have botulism, that they will avoid the bad parts and go to
the good parts and put up little signs that say, ``Brown
pelicans come here and not''--I am just having fun with this.
Mr. Graff. It is a good--you know, I am not an
ornithologist, but let me tackle that one. I think the idea,
anyway, is that with water quality treatment for the inflows to
the areas that would be diked off and protected, there would be
less in the way of water quality degradation and dying fish
than we have today. The birds are going to go where the fish
are. If there are no fish in the middle of the sea, they are
not going to go there. Maybe other birds will go there if there
is a brine fly or brine shrimp kind of environment, I don't
know. But I think at least the proposal is to address it in
ways that are good for the birds, I mean better than existing
conditions in some ways.
Ms. Bono. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, my time is winding
down. I support the plan, and I think that those of you who
have been curious about my position it is just been my hope we
could do as much proactively as we could on this to answer some
of these questions. And, hopefully, if we are going to spend
$500 million more on the future at least, hopefully we can get
a better bang for our buck by doing some of these things now.
It is just my hope that at some point in time somebody, and I
hope it would be the Administration, will look at this area and
recognize that it is a symbiotic relationship and that we are
all dependent on each other for it. And as water quality goes,
so will air quality go.
And until somebody has the nerve to stand up and tackle the
hard issues, and we all know that there are some very, very
difficult issues here. The issue of--and I am not endorsing
this proposal at all, but nobody has mentioned fallowing here,
and at some point in time somebody is going to have to have the
nerve to stand up and make these difficult choices. And in my
view, the Administration is going to really have to step up to
the plate, and I look forward to hosting the Secretary out on
an air boat in the Salton Sea in the very near future. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. We will put her up front in the air boat to
get a close experience.
Mr. Calvert. I don't want this to be a Salton Sea hearing,
but obviously in order for us to get where we need to go we
have to deal with this issue. And it appears that it is just
not California's problem, because in order for us to get where
we need to go we are going to have to get also the Upper Basin
states to assist with support with the congressional delegation
from the Upper Basin states in regards to the problem with the
Salton Sea. Sometime that may be an educational process for
members from California, but I was going to ask Mr. Anderson,
do you see that the members in the Upper Basin states
understanding the relationship with the Salton Sea and the QSA
and how we have to resolve some of these issues to get where we
need to go?
Mr. Anderson. It is hard for me to talk about all the other
Upper Basin states and their understanding. My impression is
that they do understand that there is a direct tie to the
Salton Sea and the success of this plan, and I think that is
why, as I understand, all the Upper Basin states wrote letters
in support of H.R. 2764, whatever it was, in support of that in
assistance to try and come to a solution on--one of the issues
was the Salton Sea.
And I would only--you know, I live next to the largest salt
sea in the country, as much salt here, of course, in the Salton
Sea, and we do not have the same type of environment that you
have in the Salton Sea. I would extend an invitation to this
Committee, especially to Representative Bono, to come out, and
I would be happy to make arrangements to take any of you out
and give you a tour of the Great Salt Lake and the bird refuges
that are associated with it.
I think you might find it extremely interesting to see the
type of at least wildlife that exists at the bird refuge and
U.S. fish, one of the largest and one of the oldest bird
refuges in the United States. You might find it extremely
interesting to see what happens, and there are literally tens
of thousands of white pelicans that exist on the Great Salt
Lake. I have gone out there in the middle of June in air boats
and just looked out in the distance. It absolutely looks like
it just snowed in somebody plowed a snowplow trail of snow
bank, a snow bank out in the distance where the pelicans are
at. And there is, like I said, just literally tens of
thousands. They stay there for the entire summer.
We have botulism problems that exist there, we have smell
that exists there, but, again, I think it might help understand
what happens if the Salton Sea gets saltier, which I,
unfortunately, believe is going to be the case over time and
see what some of your options might be to look and some of the
refuges that we have created around the Great--again, I would
be happy to make those arrangements for anybody that would like
to come out. Took a group of folks from California out
recently, let them look at it, and I think they were quite
surprised at what we do out there.
Mr. Calvert. And that was brought up--I am sure we will
take advantage of that opportunity and get up to the Great Salt
Lake and take a look at that.
One comment on the issue of fugitive dust, and it brings
back a memory when I was a young lad back a long time ago,
working for then the Congressman for Riverside County, Victor
V. Veesey. And the biggest issue in the Coachella Valley 1 year
was fugitive dust. I just remember that issue. That was before
they developed this--Mary wasn't born yet--that is before they
developed the golf courses and the great developments in that
area that stopped breaking that up. So I suspect, though--I
have seen dust when the sea has shrunk, so I suspect that is a
problem, and it is going to have to be dealt with, and it is
something that we will have to resolve in this next year. And I
am certainly at the disposal of the Administration with my
colleagues and with all of you to help work this thing out in
the next year, because we are going to have to do that.
An issue that also came up on Mr. Hansen's language, on the
4.4, and statutorily putting that into law. Mr. Hansen wanted
to send a message; he sent it. I think everybody heard that is
that basically, I am sure if Jim was here would way, ``We want
to send a message to California to get our hands off of
everybody else's water.'' But saying that, Mr. Caan is correct,
we are going to have to work out some language, changes. I
think there was a message there, but we will work that out.
There is a number of issues we would have to work out in this
legislation before it is brought to the floor, which we all
recognize that we have to do. So I wouldn't get too excited
about that.
Mr. Zimmerman, can you briefly explain--let us talk about
some positive things here. We are going to get this--I am an
optimist by nature. We will set the Salton Sea down for a
second and talk about something else. Can you briefly explain
the progress to date in attempting to implement the
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan in the U.S.A.? What
progress have we made so far.
OK. We have got to wait 5 minutes here while they change
the tapes.
OK. Mr. Zimmerman.
Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, there is
significant progress that has been made. We have the key term
for the Quantification Settlement Agreement. That kind of sets
a road map of some of the programs that need to be implemented.
One of the primary elements of the core water transfers is a
1988 MDW/IID conservation agreement, where a 110,000 acre feet
of water have been transferred to the coastal plain of southern
California.
Also, as I indicated, there is--$235 million have been
provided by the State legislature to fund the lining of the
canals--or $200 million of it for the lining of the canals, $35
million for the conjunctive use. As I indicated, the funding
agreements between the State of California and the Metropolitan
Water District have been executed for the lining of the
Coachella Canal as well as the $35 million is cost shared with
the Metropolitan Water District to implement the Hayfield
Groundwater Storage and Retrieval Program. So progress is being
made there.
Also, the Metropolitan Water District and the Palo Verde
Irrigation District have key terms for a Land Management Crop
Rotation Water Supply Program, which would provide Metropolitan
Water District the ability in dry years to obtain water through
a fallowing program and move that water from the Palo Verde
Irrigation District to the Metropolitan Water District.
Mr. Calvert. That was a very good agreement, by the way,
and I congratulate Metropolitan for executing that agreement
and moving that forward. So those types of solutions are going
to be more than necessary in the future. Mrs. Napolitano. I am
going to recognize her, and I am going to go back and forth.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just
blackberrying you can I get two more questions in, so if you
get that, that is the message.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Oh.
Ms. Napolitano. A couple of things that kind of rattled
around after listening to some of the questions and some of the
notes that I had, and one of them is to you, Mr. Raley. And
that is, is there any chance of being able to allow effective
interstate water transfers when it comes time for us to be able
to find additional water? I am under the impression they are
not allowed now. There had been an offer by an entity, or at
least not an offer, but a statement made at one time that they
had excess water, and the MWD was interested at the time. And I
am just wondering should something of that nature come up,
happened to be somebody out of Utah, and would that be
applicable?
Mr. Raley. Congresswoman, if any--and I suspect you or your
staff have done a lexus nexus search, you will find that in my
prior life I was adamantly opposed to any such interbasin
transfers, between the Upper and Lower Basin. That opposition
was based not only on the interests of the parties I
represented at the time, but on my personal conclusion that it
was not permissible under the 1922 compact.
However, I have not addressed that issue specifically with
the Secretary since we both joined Interior. I think it highly
unlikely that we would embark on any such effort, because we
want to focus on things that lead us other than to court, and I
am virtually certain that an interbasin transfer proposal will
trigger litigation decades, if not longer, in the United States
Supreme Court, and we would rather focus on making progress
than paying lawyers.
Ms. Napolitano. I understand, and I agree. The idea,
though, is if we are met with dire consequences, we need to
take a look at other alternatives. That was one question. And
what will be the effect--and this is also to Mr. Graff--the
effect of the lining of the canals due to the replenishing of
the aquifers?
Mr. Raley. Congressman, which canals are you referring to,
the All American canal?
Ms. Napolitano. The one in California. We are lining some
of those canals to be able to not have the seepage and the loss
of water, and those refurbished aquifers, which are used by
farmers and urban users.
Mr. Raley. It is the position of the Department of Interior
that that water belongs to the United States, not the United
States itself but it is allocated and it is for use in the
United States under applicable Law of the River. And so in
terms of who ends up with it--
Ms. Napolitano. Explain.
Mr. Raley. Well, some have suggested that because there
have been unlined canals and that canal seepage has increased
groundwater mound in the Republic of Mexico that the Republic
of Mexico has somehow obtained rights to the continuation of
unlined canals and the water that that produces for the
groundwater mound.
Ms. Napolitano. That is not my thrust.
Mr. Raley. OK, I apologize.
Ms. Napolitano. I am talking about--right. No, I am talking
about in the areas where there is farmland and there is--well,
your underground rivers, of course, are all over; it isn't just
down in the southern part of the State. And while I can
understand Mexico wanting additional water, they are
withholding almost the same amount, actually more, water along
the Texas border. Our farmers are suffering drought and not
getting their fair share of water. So I am not too, how would I
say, partial to even thinking about Mexico's problem right now.
Our concern is in California.
Mr. Raley. With respect to the canal lining within
California, there have been a lot of innovative efforts, and I
wish to commend California and its stakeholders. Both State
agencies and the agencies that are here today and those that
aren't here have made enormous strides from where I thought
they were 15 years ago to where we stand today on the brink of
an incredible success. It is only through the hard work of the
California agencies and I have no doubt that California will
continue to be able to find innovative ways to use any
remaining seepage to the benefit of--seepage derived from
California's allocation from the Colorado River to the benefit
California, as it should.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, my concern, though, has any review
been done of the--any geological studies that indicate any
detrimental effect on the current well users, for instance,
because they draw the water from the aquifers?
Mr. Raley. Congressman, I am not aware of any. I am not
saying they aren't; it is not something--it is not a matter
that has come to my attention.
Ms. Napolitano. Do you say that is something that we need
to look at? Because that will increase the farmers having to
use actual above-ground water.
Mr. Raley. I do not pretend to be an expert in the
intricacies of California water law, and the best I can do is
to promise to get back to you on that.
Ms. Napolitano. OK. Thanks. Mr. Graff?
Mr. Graff. Congresswoman, I think those problems are more
prevalent in certain parts of the Central Valley and perhaps in
urban southern California than they are either for the
Coachella Canal lining--and Gerry Zimmerman can correct me on
this if I am wrong--where the water that is seeping now goes to
very saline groundwater basins that are basically unusable.
In the case of the--I do want to comment, though, on the
case of the All American Canal. I think there are very creative
possibilities in terms of negotiating with various interests in
Mexico to combine a number of issues of concern there and here.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Graff. I am not necessarily
referring to the Salton Sea issue. I am referring to--
Mr. Graff. No, I am talking about the All American Canal
issue.
Ms. Napolitano. Oh, OK.
Mr. Graff. Where you are--I mean I--well, I--
Ms. Napolitano. I am in Los Angeles.
Mr. Graff. OK.
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. Zimmerman, any thoughts on that?
Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Graff is right. We are lining the
Coachella Canal and lining the All American Canal. The
environmental compliance documents for both of those has been
completed. I am not aware of any impact on farmers in the
United States by lining either of those canals.
Ms. Napolitano. But I am talking about California farmers.
Mr. Zimmerman. Right. And within California's Colorado
River Water Use Plan, we are focusing on California's source,
the Colorado River, and not looking internally within southern
California at projects and programs--
Ms. Napolitano. I see.
Mr. Zimmerman. --that each of the individual agencies may
undertake. We are looking at just the supply coming from the
Colorado River.
Ms. Napolitano. OK. While it may not necessarily be tied
into directly, it is tied into it indirectly, because I can
tell you my municipal users have multiple wells, and they have
been in existence for over 50, 80 years. Some of those wells
have been shut down because of contamination, because they can
no longer draw as much water out of the aquifers that they used
to. And so they rely a lot more on the actual imported water.
And so, consequently, there is a nexus there. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlelady. I am going to let
Bennett Raley escape, and I have a couple more questions, but
he has a commitment. We appreciate your attending and look
forward to working with you on a couple of little issues we
have got to resolve here in the next year, some in the next 3
months.
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that was a
polite way of saying you are tired of my non-responsiveness
responses, so I will leave. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. No, you did very well. Have a great day.
Mr. Graff, I have heard from you and other organizations
from the environmental community that for years have been
pushing for agriculture to urban water transfers as a means to
avoid construction of new dams and canals. Do you agree that
the QSA is in line with that goal?
Mr. Graff. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. That is a good answer. All right. If the QSA
fails and if the special provisions of the ISG at the Interim
Surplus Agreement are suspended, will the consequences be felt
throughout California, as opposed just to the southern part of
the State?
Mr. Graff. Your Honor, there was a quote in the San
Francisco Chronical to that effect yesterday, so I guess my
answer to that is, yes, although--I suppose it is probably yes,
because Assistant Secretary Raley was careful to say that
whatever action the Secretary would take in respect of the 2003
water year would be in accordance of the Law of the River, and
there is at least some dispute as to what the Law of the River
would provide in the event that the QSA is indeed not finally
signed next December.
Mr. Calvert. Going back to Salton Sea for a second, do
environmental organizations, in general, support the
restoration of the Salton Sea?
Mr. Graff. I think all environmental organizations that I
am familiar with are interested in restoration of Salton Sea
values. When one says restoration of the Salton Sea, I think it
maybe takes a little beyond that. It is unclear what sea would
be restored. So I think there are differences of view as to
whether we can keep the current sea even with all its problems
or whether we have to address a changing environment,
irrespective of whether the transfers are approved in all their
glory or not.
Mr. Calvert. A question for the gentleman from Nevada. I
asked this same question with the Upper Basin states, and maybe
you can kind of fill in for Arizona at the same time.
Obviously, if we are having a problem with the implementation
of the QSA a year from now, I am just curious from your
perspective about--now that Bennett Raley has left I can ask
this question--about extending the deadline beyond December of
2002. I just thought I would get that on the table and ask.
Mr. Caan. I would be happy to answer that. I think it might
be presumptuous for me to speak for Arizona, but to the extent
that they agree with what I say, I can speak for them. And if
they don't agree with it, I decline to speak for them.
I think that over the 10 years we were developing the
Interim Surplus Criteria, we knew that the--we knew we were
approaching the day when Nevada and Arizona would be reaching
their full apportionment, entitlements and that eventually
California would have to get back to the 4.4 million acre feet
of their entitlement as well. And we thought it would be
difficult to do that but not impossible. So in the development
of the criteria what I think we all agreed, as the seven Basin
states, was that it is going to be difficult but not impossible
to get where California needs to go. And that is why we
prepared what Maureen had referred to as a soft landing, which
is a 15-year period within which to bring California down to
the 4.4 million acre feet.
It is important to note we are not specifically asking
California to reduce its water consumption; what we are
specifically saying is the reduction of the water consumption
from the Colorado River to legal entitlement. I think given
that we are at the very beginnings of the development of this
program, we have just recently had the Interim Surplus Criteria
signed, that we have been very innovative and creative
solutions, I think looking at extensions or time extensions or
changes at this point is probably premature. I think what we
want to do is to retain the flexibility and creativity to meet
the deadlines that have been so vigorously pursued and agreed
to by the states.
Mr. Calvert. In other words, you are open minded. I just
bring that up because, as was pointed out by Mr. Zimmerman,
there is a lot being done in order for us to wean ourselves
from the Colorado River. It was mentioned the Palo Verde
Valley, the Hayfield, et cetera, et cetera. There are other
things going on in the State. And I would hope that you would
keep open minded on that, because it seems that the Salton Sea
issue is a very complex issue. We have been working on this for
a number of years. I am hoping we can get this resolved
relatively soon, but as long as you see good efforts going out
there, I would hope that you be open minded to that. Mr. Graff?
Mr. Graff. If I might just say one thing. I think the most
salient part and best part of the surplus guidelines is the
schedule of benchmark quantities for California agricultural
diversions in that it provides a steady diminution of how much
water the Secretary will deliver the agricultural sector in
California over a prescribed number of years. And that affords
California a lot of flexibility and creativity in trying to
maintain as much as possible the full Colorado River aqueduct
for the urban areas, while addressing the problems that
diminishing quantities of water to the agricultural areas would
bring.
Mr. Calvert. Any further comments from the panel? Yes, Mr.
Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. I think from the standpoint of the majority
of the states, the December 31 date is really a critical date
and very important to, I would guess, five of the states. And I
just want to point out that we have not received any report
from California that they are not going to meet the deadline.
The report is they will meet the deadline, they have never
asked for an extension of time on that. I think the Record of
Decision is pretty specific what the Secretary has to do, and
if for some reason California is not going to meet the
deadline, I think it behooves them to come to the Basin states
and let us know and ask us if there is something we can work
out.
Mr. Calvert. We all, I think, want to see an agreement
executed prior to December of 2002, but we have a lot of work
to do. Any other comments? I want to thank the witnesses for
attending and one last comment by--
Ms. Napolitano. Just a question. What do you think,
gentlemen and ma'am, you can do to help us reach the QSA? Any
suggestions? I know I am not from the agency, but what do you
suggest other than, well, coming to you and letting you know
where they are at, where California is at?
Mr. Anderson. What California has asked the Basin states to
do is to support H.R. 2764, and we have all done that. As far
as I know, that is all that we have been asked to do, and we
have all stepped forth, gone to our congressional delegations
and asked them to support that piece of legislation.
Mr. Caan. I would echo Mr. Anderson's comments. As I said
earlier, from Nevada's point of view, the implementation of
these criteria is linked to our ability to continue our water
supplies for the future extend and continue those. We have
supported the criteria itself, the soft landing, supported the
bills that have supported the development of projects to help
California. We will continue to support those kind of efforts,
and that is why as the seven states, at least the six other
states, have worked toward the support of those elements needed
to ensure California can meet the deadline that are in the
criteria.
Ms. Napolitano. Maybe I should ask Mr. Zimmerman what can
these other entities do to help California meet the deadline?
Mr. Zimmerman. Give up their water.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Napolitano. They are already giving us the water.
Mr. Zimmerman. As I indicated in my testimony, you know,
the critical date, and we in California believe that that is
firm date, the December 31, 2002, what right now is standing in
the way of being able to meet that date that is a major issue
is the Salton Sea. And how we, you address the Salton Sea and
in a timely manner hinges on the ability to meet that critical
date of December 31, 2002. Within the State of California,
Secretary Nichols, the secretary for the Resource Agency, is
leading the discussions within California to look at the Salton
Sea, the fully protected legislation within California and the
issues that have been identified that have the potential of
derailing of the execution of the agreement by the December
deadline. So I guess I would encourage you to expedite whatever
you can to assist California in addressing the Salton Sea
issues.
Mr. Calvert. Right. And by the way, from what Bennett said,
they are going to have a number of preferred solutions, and I
think we will have to coalesce behind one as soon as possible
and move with whatever that may be as soon as possible as a
solution to that problem. And hopefully that will be very soon.
If there is no other comments, again, I want to thank you
all for coming out today. It was very informative, and we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Letters submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6574.011