[Senate Hearing 107-253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-253
CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY, AND WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT
OF 2001
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 976
TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION AND FUNDING FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE
ECOSYSTEMS, WATER SUPPLY, AND WATER QUALITY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
__________
JULY 19, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-326 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
BYRON H. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
BOB GRAHAM, Florida GORDON SMITH, Oregon
RON WYDEN, Oregon JON KYL, Arizona
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Patty Beneke, Senior Counsel
Colleen Deegan, Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California................ 14
Cunneen, Jim, President and CEO, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber
of Commerce, San Jose, CA...................................... 59
Davis, Grant, Executive Director, the Bay Institute of San
Francisco...................................................... 65
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 35
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 1
Hall, Stephen K., Executive Director, Association of California
Water Agencies................................................. 47
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona......................... 4
Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California......... 5
Moss, Richard M., General Manager, Friant Waters Users Authority,
Lindsay, CA.................................................... 39
Nichols, Mary D., Secretary for Resources, State of California... 27
Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary, Department of the Interior...... 20
Pace, Phillip J., Chairman, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA........................... 62
Somach, Stuart L., Partner, Somach, Simmons and Dunn, Sacramento,
CA............................................................. 52
Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., U.S. Representative from California..... 12
Wright, Patrick, Director, CALFED, Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento,
CA............................................................. 36
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 73
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 81
CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY, AND WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT
OF 2001
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne
Feinstein presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. I would like to begin this hearing first
of all with the announcement that the chairman of the
subcommittee is Senator Dorgan, and he is at an Appropriations
markup, which is where I should be too, but first things first.
I want to welcome everybody and particularly the three
legislators from California, my friend and colleague, Senator
Boxer; Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher; and Congressman George
Miller. And we will be taking your testimony in just a couple
of minutes.
I am delighted the Secretary of the Interior is here.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. And also the head of the Department
of Resources in the State, Mary Nichols, I am delighted that
you could come back for this hearing.
So we will get to you hopefully before too long. But I
think it is very useful that you are here in this first row and
listening to this testimony, because as Mark Twain once said,
``In California, whiskey is for drinking, and water is for
fighting.'' And it has been that way ever since.
I have tried to break the cycle of that with this bill that
is before us. And we tried very hard to find common ground and
to bring the very disparate set of stakeholders together.
These are the urban water districts, the agricultural water
contractors and users, as well as environmentalists that
obviously have an interest in water.
I believe that the bill I have introduced represents a good
compromise. The current version before the committee is the
result of literally dozens of meeting with stakeholders. And it
has gone through a number of drafts.
I would also like to mention that I plan on submitting an
amendment to my bill at the markup. And I think it improves the
legislation.
These amendments are presented after consultation with the
Governor of the State of California, as well as with my
colleague, Barbara Boxer, and knowing of Congressman Miller's
concerns, to try to bring our bill a little closer to where you
are.
The first provision that we will amend addresses the
assurance language that provides a promise that west side's
agricultural contractors will get some benefit from this
language. And I think the language we are evolving better
reflects the record of decision.
The second provision that we will change involves the
procedure for instituting an expedited authorization process
for three storage projects.
Let me say right up front, this bill essentially
preauthorizes $1 billion worth of environmental projects. Most
of them are under $10 million; therefore, they go through.
The scope and nature of many of them that are authorized
are really not known at the present time. Nonetheless, we have
a commitment to move, to restore the environmental ecosystem of
the California water system and we intend to honor that
promise.
The expedited approval process that we are working on and
the thrust and balance of this bill is that all elements of the
bill move together, so that it is balanced. And that is because
of the division among the stakeholders; so that the urban water
users feel that they are getting substantial advances; the
environmentalists feel they are getting substantial advances.
The environmental water account, $50 million a year for four
years, begins.
And many of us believe very strongly that what happened in
the Klamath basin is just a prelude to what is going to happen
throughout the rest of the State. It may not happen because an
endangered species shuts off a water flow to 1,500 farmers, but
it should open our eyes as to the shortage of water.
Our water system essentially was built when Pat Brown was
governor and we were 16 million people. We are 34 million
people and on our way to becoming 50 million people by 2020. We
must learn from the electricity crisis and get ahead. So I feel
very strongly that balance and moving concurrently is
extraordinarily important.
There are three water storage projects. One is the delta
wetlands. One is raising Shasta dam. The other is Los Vaqueros
Reservoir, raising it for water quality reasons. And the
question is how to move this rapidly without holding up
everything else. And therefore, what we have come up with is a
180-day expedited approval process.
Senator Boxer was concerned that it not be a
preauthorization. We have accepted that concern. We have tried
to work around it, but with an expedited procedure, whereby it
would go through both houses within the 180 days.
So the bill aims to move the ecosystem restoration, the
water quality improvements and the water storage improvements
concurrently.
And I am delighted that Senator Kyl from Arizona is here,
because I believe this bill also helps us take pressure off of
the Colorado River, if we can do it right. And I know that is a
concern of yours.
For those of you who are not familiar with California water
issues, who may or may not be in the audience, CALFED is a
joint Federal/State program. The State owns one big water
project. The Federal Government owns and operates a second
large water project.
And what we aim to do is bring them together in a concerted
management under CALFED, where decisions can be made and we
could move to do those things that we need to do.
This really began for me in 1993 when a number of
agricultural leaders and others asked if I could please sit
down and bring the Secretary of the Interior in and see if we
cannot get some coordination to keep everybody out of court.
And Secretary Norton's predecessor was good enough to
participate. And that was really the beginning of the CALFED
project, which she, of course, is going to inherit. So it has
been dozens of meetings with stakeholders, cities, counties.
I would like to introduce into the record now 59 letters in
support of this legislation, from agencies all over the State,
from Humboldt County to San Diego County, including the
Association of California Water Agencies, Ag-America, the
Alameda District, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the
Bay Area Council, Calaveros, California Sod Producers, city of
Sacramento, city of Milbrae, Contra Costa, Delta Wetlands, East
Orange County Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility
District, Humboldt Bay Water District, Kern County, Kings
County, Long Beach, Metropolitan Water District--the largest in
the State--the Mojave Water Agency, the North of the River
Municipal Water District, Orange County, Placer County,
Riverside County, San Diego County Water Authority, San
Francisco Bay Area Water Users, San Gabriel Valley Economic
Partnership, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, Santa
Clara and on and on and on.
And we have tried to keep all of these agencies, in what
has been a very fluid process, advised as we move along.
Now, here is what the bill does. It authorizes the CALFED
program, as agreed to by the State and Federal Government last
June. The CALFED program is estimated to cost between $8 and
$12 billion total. This bill authorizes a Federal cost share of
about $3 billion. It is limited to that over 7 years.
It authorizes such sums as may be available, but if we were
to have a number, the clear intent is that the Federal share
would be about $3 billion.
The State has already--and I think Ms. Nichols will talk
about this--moved very aggressively in moving their portion of
this forward. They passed a bond issue, so we have every reason
to believe that the State is going to produce its share.
Approximately $1 billion of the $3 billion is earmarked for
ecosystem restoration. The Act authorizes projects, as I said,
that require less than $10 million Federal appropriation,
providing that these have received environmental review and
approval as required by State and Federal law, and have a
finding consistent with a record of decision.
It also authorizes the environmental water account, which
provides $50 million annually for 4 years to purchase water to
enhance fisheries, to protect threatened and endangered species
and to avoid takings issues.
And we hope to create conditions where the State's water
projects can operate reliably. This would provide an additional
380,000 acre feet per year. Plus during the first year, there
would be an additional 200,000 acre feet on top of the 300,000.
The bill would authorize feasibility studies and reports
for the potential storage projects, particularly the first
tranche.
The first tranche are the three I mentioned. The others are
San Joaquin River Storage, San Louis Reservoir Bypass, the
Freeport Regional Project, new ground water storage, South of
Delta blending projects, Bay Area blending exchange projects
and South Delta conveyance improvements.
As I mentioned, the expedited review for the three we are
talking about now, we believe, should provide about 950,000
acre feet of new storage. That is taking water from the wet
years and holding it for the dry years.
The bill authorizes a new ecosystem enhancement program to
ensure that the environmental objectives of CALFED are carried
out. It sets up a water supply grant program to ensure that the
storage and conveyance objectives of CALFED are carried out.
So that is essentially, in a nutshell, what this bill does.
And I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona
if he has a comment, and then I will proceed to our colleagues.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Madam Chairman, just a very quick comment to
compliment you for holding this hearing first of all, and also
attempting to move this legislation.
It is going to be very difficult and very complex, of
course. And I know you appreciate that. But I think the effort
to try to track as carefully as possible the record of
decision, to try to get the parties together and to begin the
process, knowing that it will be difficult is a very important
one.
I have a lot of questions that, I think, if we can get good
answers to will help to move the bill forward, and I want to
pledge to you that I am going to work very, very closely with
you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Kyl. My work prior to the time I came to the
Congress involved a lot of reclamation issues, a lot of water
issues in the practice of law.
We have done a lot of these in the State of Arizona. And we
have a big one coming along, so I have some familiarity with
the difficulty of moving these projects forward and the
difficulty of getting everybody together. And therefore, I want
to help as much as I can to enable you to move forward with a
bill, which meets as many of the needs as possible. And again,
I appreciate your holding the hearing.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I thank you very much, Senator. I
think you know I have great respect for you. We work easily and
well on other committee efforts and I really look forward to
it.
I hope we can move this bill, because there are some
appropriations that we need to keep. So moving the bill is
important. And I look forward to it.
Now, I would normally go to my colleague, Senator Boxer. Do
you wish to defer to the Congressman?
Senator Boxer. Both colleagues, because they have votes
close to pending, and I think we are okay for awhile, I think.
Senator Feinstein. All right.
Senator Boxer. Although this is beeping, so I am not so
sure.
Senator Feinstein. Between the two of you, which one--oh,
see, women always give way.
[Laughter.]
Congresswoman Tauscher. Well, he is the senior member.
Congresswoman Miller. Not the women in our House. I am
honored.
[Laughter.]
Congressman Tauscher. He is not only my senior, he is my
better.
Senator Feinstein. Oh.
[Laughter.]
Congressman Miller. I am--oh, now, I am dead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Keep going, Ellen. You will get his
support maybe.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Congressman Miller. Senator Feinstein, let me begin by
thanking you and the members of the committee for taking this
time to hear our concerns and to provide this opportunity to
testify on the CALFED process and on your proposed legislation.
I deeply appreciate it.
I think that we are all committed to the very strong
notion, if not truism, that CALFED is the best opportunity that
we have had to bring about the kind of changes in the
California water scene that is necessary, to provide the kind
of flexibility to future Governors of that State, to address
the changing California economy, which has undergone dramatic
changes and, of course, the California growth and population,
which has changed so many of the outlooks that we have had on
water in our State over the last couple of decades.
I have been at this the entire 27 years that I have been in
the Congress of the United States. I think I was at it a little
bit before then, when I grew up in a household where many
weekends a year--it is hard for people today to understand
that--Clarence Sawyer and James Boswell and the Delta farmers
and others met in our living room week after week sorting out
and allocating water in the State of California.
I am not sure the Delta always won, but the process went
forward. And we all recognized the complexities.
You mentioned the Klamath Basin. It is the CALFED process
and the adherence to it, and the progress that we have made to
date that has kept this system, the largest water system in the
Nation, out of the problems and the kinds of dramatic,
Draconian choices that we have seen made in the basin.
And I want to applaud Senator Bingaman for his attention to
this, yours, and members of the committee, and Senator Boxer
and Congresswoman Tauscher.
As you mentioned, your legislation is evolving and we
appreciate the fact that you have kept this in a fluid state,
so that we could offer comments and you could respond and other
people could take a look at it, and to see whether we are right
or wrong.
And I think major improvements have been made to this
legislation, the changes that you have suggested. And really
what I am left with is a number of questions that I think are
very important in terms of our ultimate success.
All of us from the West, know that water projects thread a
very narrow needle in the Congress of the United States. And we
have got to be together. We cannot be fighting one another.
We almost have to be unanimous in everything to get it
through when you talk Western water, because nobody west of the
Mississippi thinks this is--this pertains to them. Then when
you talk California water, that old needle gets a little bit
narrower, and that is the needle that we are trying to thread
here and I think we are all heading in the same direction.
I think that when people understand the kinds of diversity
and parties that were brought together in the CALFED process,
the fact that stakeholders who had only thrown rocks at one
another and only sued one another were forced to stay in a room
and to stay in the process until we came to a near consensus--
not a complete, but a near consensus, I think speaks well of
our State and what we have tried to do to reformulate the
California system.
One of the first questions I have is really the question of
the South of Delta water assurances. And I understand what you
are trying to do there, and I understand the importance of that
with respect to holding CALFED together, that everybody who is
currently a water user wants to make sure that, in fact, their
right, their need, their concerns are addressed and have the
full attention of the process.
And the ROD spoke to increasing deliveries to these
contractors to 65 or 70 percent of their current contract
level, but the ROD does not make that an entitlement. It makes
that that should be our best effort and that is what we should
look forward to and we should do that respecting the economies
that that water supports in terms of our agricultural
community.
My concern is really raised on page 15 with subsection
three, which is one of the three things to be done to proceed
in carrying out the intent of the Rod. And I say this as a
question. I do not have a conclusion, and I do not want to
suggest that my question--I just--I think we need to know
whether or not this is beyond the allocation that we would
expect in the first part of the environmental water account.
And I say that not knowing.
And to make sure that we are not creating an entitlement
under that section, so that water has to go out and be
purchased specifically for that purpose because, as we know,
the environmental water account has a number of different draws
on it, given what is going on in our economy and mother nature.
And I just raise that question. And I do not know the
answer. And it has been alleged to me in the last 24 hours that
it does both and neither. So I do not know.
Senator Feinstein. Can your staff work with ours and see if
we can get that cleared away?
Congressman Miller. Sure. I raise the question so that it
is on the record, and I hope people in the room can help
provide this.
My concern is--and I come at this with a bias because the
area that I represent--I do not want to create a handle which
then creates litigation, which is then argued that this is
somehow--this section is a bootstrap to a mandate for water
beyond what the ROD says we will make our best good faith
efforts to do. And that is a concern.
Senator Feinstein. Can you just clear this up quickly? Are
you talking about line 5, page 15, Environment Water Account
Priorities and Operation? Is that the section?
Congressman Miller. Well, I think the problem is we may be
looking at a different--I am on page 15. I am in section 3,
line 3.
``In the''--I do not want to get into this craziness in a
hearing, but there are three things that must be done
implementing that, ``develop environmental water account to
protect and restore Delta fisheries; provide a foundation for
regulatory assurances to ensure the water supply and
reliability for Delta exporters; and three, increase deliveries
in the manner and the extent prescribed in the record of
decision South of Delta Valley Water project contracts,'' and
on. I do not want to turn into a mandate, because that is not
what the ROD does.
Senator Feinstein. I understand.
Congressman Miller. Later on, you say ``nothing in this
sub-paragraph shall diminish or affect the rights--diminish or
expand rights.'' And I appreciate that language and it is
important.
My concern is that subsection 3, in and of itself on its
face creates that mandate without regard to contract or Delta
water accounts. That is to be answered. That is my question.
And obviously we cannot answer that here today.
But I think it is one that must be, because it sets up a
dynamic among water users and rights holders within the State.
And you have already heard from the Friant people on the
earlier language and you have heard from the environmental
community, which have very, very real concerns.
They come from a different direction, but their concerns
are quite real. And so I lay that on the table for discussion.
And, again, noting that you have already made changes in the
section that I think are very helpful. And so this is to follow
on to that.
The other question is and you are struggling here with
something that all of us as members of Congress, whether
engaged in water or not--and that is a frustration with the
legislative process and the timing and the extent it takes to
get things done. And obviously the needs of CALFED, the needs
of our State do not know legislative time tables.
We will or will not have a drought. We will or will not
have new people move to our State. We will or will not have new
businesses open and acreage put into agriculture.
We need these programs and projects to go forward. My
concern is that as I read the legislation--and I say this not
in a confrontational fashion, but again in a questioning
fashion, that the report, the feasibility report will be done
and then it will be offered. And I think my concern is that the
question comes about the ability to amend that. That
feasibility could be released and the Governor of the State
could not be happy with the outcomes and would seek an
amendment.
You could seek an amendment. I could seek an amendment. Our
opponents in one fashion or another, wherever they come from,
would seek that. I do not know how you take away from a
legislative body its ability to raise a point of order or to
seek an amendment.
I can understand how we can limit their time of debate, how
we can schedule it for the floor, how we can say ``It has to be
out of committee in X numbers of days,'' to expedite that
process.
But I do not think that you can tell us on something as
complicated and as big and as important as California water and
the projects contained in this legislation that we so
desperately need that we can become a rubber stamp on that; or
that the Congress or the Senate--the House or the Senate would
do that.
And so we have to keep the amendment process there. I think
if you can get rid of the filibuster on this bill, if you can
force the House to discharge the bill and get it to the floor
and get a vote on it, that is in keeping with all of the rights
of everybody who is pro or con in this situation. They should
not be allowed to simply delay the consideration or the up or
down vote.
And I say that because I think it is a question of assuring
success and also making sure that the feasibility study is
something that we can deal with.
In my years on the committee as chairman, as chairman of
the Water Committee and as ranking member of both, I have
authorized and we have spent billions of dollars coming back
and making up for mistakes where things were expedited, and
political power plays were made.
And I do not think today any longer the Congress is going
to spend that kind of money to do it. We have got to be able to
look our colleagues in the eye from the West, from our
neighboring States, and from those who are not from the West
and say, ``This is on the level for the taxpayers, for the
environment, for the good of our economy and our State.''
And that may take some movement. I do not know that the
environmental community will be comfortable, and this does not
say whether they have a right or not to take at face value a
feasibility report by Secretary Norton.
Nor would the water users have been comfortable if
Secretary Babbitt said take it up or down on a feasibility
report that he would have written.
That is just the nature of politics, and I do not know that
we can change that. We should not let people just come in and
delay and bog the process down.
We have a House Rules Committee. They make sure that we do
not get bogged down. I cannot address the Senate, but you know
which procedures you have to try to expedite in that case.
And finally I make this point on this one. On a project
that I have supported, we tried to get Los Vaqueros to be a
larger dam a number of years ago. We could not find any
partners. We wanted the Federal Government. We wanted East Bay
Mud. We wanted other people to participate.
We went ahead and built it on our own, but that dam, which
may be one of the most important components of this system in
terms of management of the system--not a lot of yield on
water--but in terms of management, certainly in a dry year and
a critical dry year, that component is subject to a referendum.
Senator Feinstein. We understand.
Congressman Miller. And if this process is not on the
level, I do not think I have to be too graphic to describe to
people the kind of campaign that we would be engaged in in
Congresswoman Tauscher's district and my district, in the
service area and the site of that reservoir.
That reservoir, when it is expanded, will raise a series of
issues that go beyond the yield or the storage capacity or the
quality. It will start to take away habitat. It is in the
middle of a habitat conservation area now. It is going to take
away recreational opportunities that will have to be amended.
And you can understand the kind of dynamics if those of us
who are elected officials are not able to present that the
consideration of this went through the regular order, so that
all of us had a say, had a chance to amend it and move it on.
Not to delay it, not to filibuster it, but to deal with it, yes
or no.
But what we really want is a yes. We want all of this
CALFED process to go forward. And that is really the two
questions that I raise.
And I do not pretend to, again, say what process would work
in the Senate. But in the House, I think we have some built-in
protections, because of a Rules Committee, but we can also use
some time lines in terms of discharge of this report to move it
on down the legislative process and get it over to you, or get
yours over--your result over to the House.
I think those are the two critical points. One is about a
level playing field among water users. And the other is about a
level playing field among the greater constituency that is
concerned for a whole reason and different agendas about what
goes on in California water.
But I say this as one who was encouraged in the past, and
we never really got there with the kinds of studies necessary
on Shasta, who was a supporter of Los Vaqueros initially, and
thinks that the expansion makes a lot of sense. I say that
awaiting the feasibility report.
But I think it is an important component of the kind of
flexibility that I have preached about what this system, an
integrated system, a Federal, State water system ought to be
able to do to respond to future needs in our State.
And the third one is the in-Delta thing. I do not know what
the hell is going on there. But--sorry.
[Laughter.]
Congressman Miller. But we will sort that out. Thank you
very much.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, thank you.
Congressman Miller. And I, again, want to say that these
questions are offered because I think the clarity is important.
And I think our success of what you are trying to do is
important.
We do not want to have a process where we end up with
people voting it down. We want to end up with a process where
we go forward in CALFED, because there is a lot of winners in
this CALFED process.
And there is a lot of complementary actions, as you have
noted, that have to be done here. And the beneficiaries
sometimes are a long ways away from the project, but the
beneficiaries nevertheless are there in terms of our economy,
in terms of our municipal systems and all the rest of it.
You know all that. You do not need to hear that from me.
But thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thanks.
Congressman Miller. And we have a vote, so please let
Congressman Tauscher----
Senator Feinstein. Yes. Senator Boxer, do you defer to
Congresswoman Tauscher?
Senator Boxer. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Feinstein. All right. Congresswoman Tauscher,
please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, U.S. Representative
From California
Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate your providing me an opportunity to testify this afternoon
about proposals to reauthorize the CALFED process.
Let me begin by stating my belief that the CALFED process remains
the best opportunity for all Californians to develop and implement a
water program that meets the diverse future needs of our state. Over
the years, when various stakeholders would threaten to quit the CALFED
process, and I have always advised that there is no other way to
proceed without encountering litigation, obstruction and long delays
that jeopardize the future of California. So, we are all here with the
same basic goal.
As many of you know well, I come to this issue with a very long
involvement in water policy over the past 26 years ago. As chairman of
the House Committee on Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on Water
and Power, or as senior Democrat on that committee for over a decade, I
know the issues and the players. I know quite a bit about the precision
that must go into drafting water legislation, and I have a lot of
experience with people who seize on every vagueness or nuance to file
lawsuits and delay the implementation of important reforms.
It is with that extensive background that I speak today not about
the details of legislation which continues to change. I applaud Senator
Bingaman, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer and others who are
demonstrating an interest in making modifications to address legitimate
concerns about CALFED legislation. This legislation is evolving; it has
changed to reflect many concerns we have raised, and I want to thank
Senator Feinstein for incorporating changes. Some major questions
remain, and I want to continue to work with all interested members to
assure that in its final form, the bill is clear and concise and that
it reflects the consensus and integrity of the CALFED process.
I want to speak about principles that must be included in this
legislation if it is to have credibility and, most importantly, if it
is to maintain the alliance formed around CALFED and the Record of
Decision last year. California must get its act together if we expect
senators and representatives from other states to spend hundreds of
millions, or billions, of federal dollars in our state.
What is important is that we work together to minimize the dissent,
and that we ensure that the legislation we craft serves the best
interest of California as a whole. And we can do that if we abide by
certain key principles.
There has been much discussion over the ``south of Delta water
assurances'' language in S. 976. The ROD spoke of increasing deliveries
to these contractors to 65% or 70% of their current contract levels.
But the ROD did not, and this legislation must not, alter the water
rights of any party in the state. It does not alter the rights of any
CVP contractor beyond those contained in an existing contract. It
creates no right to a fixture contract, or to water or other terms in a
fixture contract beyond those in existing law. After our experience
with energy, we certainly need to be sure we don't mandate that water
be purchased by the state at a high price and re-sold to contractors at
bargain basement rates. To do any of these would upset the entire CVP
contracting process, undercut the water flexibility goals of current
law that serve all current and fixture contractors for water, and
jeopardize the state's role in establishing water rights.
I note the concerns raised by over 25 environmental organizations
to inclusion of such language, and also the warning from Richard Moss,
General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority, who recently urged
deletion of assurances language which creates ``legal fodder for those
who have a history of using any claimed lack of clarity in federal law
or contracts to bootstrap themselves to an improved water supply
position at the expense of other.''
As the former chairman and ranking member of the authorizing
committee, I have grave concerns about any procedure that constrains
debate or the opportunity for full review by the committee or the
House. We rarely impose such conditions on legislation, and then it is
typically on matter where there are internationally negotiated
considerations or careful fiscal balancing like budget resolutions. I
am skeptical that a water project in California rises to this level.
But if you decide to include expedited authorization language for
Shasta, Los Vaqueros, and the in-Delta project, it must be cautiously
written. The most recent language for S. 976 that I have seen--dated
July 18, 2001--still raises some serious concerns.
The pre-authorization process anticipates introduction and
expeditious consideration of a joint resolution concerning the three
Stage 1 projects after completion of feasibility studies. But this
language does not even require that the resolution track the
feasibility study. And what if more than one resolution is offered; who
determines which is considered? In the real world of legislation, such
questions are fundamental since they determine whether you must defend
or alter pending legislation.
Once the legislation moves to the floor of the Senate or House, it
is to be considered under tightly regulated rules. But water projects
from New Mexico or North Dakota or Colorado don't receive such
priority. Why California?
This draft bill shuts out the House Rules Committee, cuts off the
Parliamentarians, and infringes on the authority of other committees
which could not raise points of order against germaneness even if their
jurisdiction is impacted. Such a resolution in the House could waive
the Budget Act and allow no point of order? Repeal the Endangered
Species Act? Waive the Clean Water Act? Appropriate funds? I do not
think that is realistic.
While the intent is to expedite projects through this provision, it
has been my experience that such efforts more frequently make projects
more, not less, controversial. As chairman of the committee and
subcommittee, we had to go back and reformulate the Central Arizona
Project, the Central Utah Project, the Salton Sea recovery plan, the
Garrison Project, and of course, the Central Valley Project itself.
Each was facing bankruptcy, litigation, environmental crisis or
political stalemate--sometimes all of them--because someone thought
they could bend the system and fast track the project. Let's not slip a
poison bill into this bill that inadvertently causes delays we all want
to avoid.
More important than my personal opposition is the all-but-certain
response of skeptical local voters. Such a belief would doubtless raise
strong opposition to an expanded Los Vaqueros project among Contra
Costa County voters, who, as I have noted, must vote for any
modification of the existing facility. Without such a local vote in
favor of an expanded Los Vaqueros, a major storage feature favored by
CALFED would be lost.
I agree that we need to implement CALFED and promote water savings
and efficiency, develop new supplies, and employ technology to expand
our water supplies. Towards that end, I have recently introduced H.R.
2404, ``The California Water Quality and Reliability Act of 2001''
which expedites feasibility studies and promotes groundwater storage
and management and recycling--a plan that I believe can generate
reliable water supplies, at lower cost and in a shorter time frame than
other proposals.
The key for success for this legislation is that Californians work
together, realistically and cooperatively, to move CALFED down the
road. We are making progress; we are in better shape today than we were
a week ago.
We can have a CALFED that promotes reasonable new water supplies,
protects the environment, and respects taxpayers while also assuring
the continued flexibility of the California water program so that we
are able to meet the changing demands of a growing state. I look
forward to working with members of the delegation and the Congress to
assure that we pass that kind of CALFED legislation this year.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Congresswoman Tauscher. Thank you, Senator, for chairing
this meeting. And I want to thank Chairman Dorgan, and ranking
member Smith and Mr. Kyl and Mr. Burns for attending. And I
especially want to thank Senator Kyl for his offer of
bipartisan support for, what I think, is going to be very
important for California.
We have a very important series of votes on the floor. We
have just been called for them, so my statement is available.
I just want to say very quickly that I want to thank you,
Senator, for your leadership. I especially want to thank my
colleague, Mr. Miller, my neighbor just to the north of me, for
his decades-long leadership, and Senator Boxer for her support.
I also want to thank Chairman Calvert for making this
process open and receptive for members with differing
perspectives on how this program should go forward.
I think it is very, very vital that we reauthorize CALFED.
And I think that we have to do it this year and in this
Congress. And it is very important that we do it in a way that
is reflective of the kinds of balance between supply and
quality and ecosystem restoration that I think is embedded in
your bill.
And I really want to thank you for keeping such an open
mind and bringing so many people together and of constantly
moving to improve this bill, which I think goes a long way to
making sure that we can deal with the kind of growth that we
are going to have in California over the next 30 or 40 years,
at the same time that we take care of the values that we all
care about, improving our fisheries, making sure that we deal
with threatened and endangered species, and obviously dealing
with the fact that we have got some of the best farm land in
the country.
I represent, as does Mr. Miller, some of the urban users
and obviously the Delta is in our backyard--his front yard, my
back yard.
Obviously, we are very, very committed to making sure that
we have that ecosystem protected and restored. It is in
desperate shape. It is the largest estuary in the West, and it
is something that I think makes the Bay area what it is.
And obviously we are very much interested in making sure
that the ROD that so many people spent so many years working
on----
Senator Feinstein. Let me just stop you, because I hate
acronyms back here. Washington functions--for those of you who
do not know, the ROD is record of decision.
Congresswoman Tauscher. Record of decision.
Senator Feinstein. Sorry. Go ahead.
Congresswoman Tauscher. And that record of decision was
hard fought for many years, with many, many people working very
hard, biting their tongues, staying at the table. And I want to
thank you and others for their leadership in making sure that
we had an ROD.
But now that we have one, I believe that S. 976 is
comprehensive and goes a long way to turning the goals of the
ROD into realities for California. And I think that it is
important that we continue this process, that we continue to
move forward.
On the assurances issue, the two pieces, I guess, that I
really just want to talk about very quickly were on the issue
of assurances. I want to be on the record for saying: For those
users south of the Delta, I am glad that the new version of S.
976 moves away from guaranteeing water deliveries.
On the issue of this pre-authorization, I know that you
have been working hard with Governor Davis and others on
language that would be expediting and that would improve the
opportunity for us to keep these fragile coalitions together.
I think that this is very tough work and your diligence, I
think, will pay off. But I am here essentially to represent the
fact that we have, I think, many people that want to work
together.
I really appreciate what my colleagues have done. I am
trying the best I can to make sure that we have, working with
Mr. Calvert, the opportunity to get something done this year. I
think if we do not do it this year, we are going to deeply
regret it. And that will only accrue negatively to California
and our opportunities in the future.
So I want to catch this vote.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Tauscher. I appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Tauscher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ellen O. Tauscher, U.S. Representative
From California
Thank you, Madame Chair, Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Smith and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you this afternoon and provide testimony on S. 967, the
California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act
of 2001. A bill with a big name and an equally big responsibility.
I want to thank you, Senator Feinstein, for your leadership and
foresight in crafting this bill to reauthorize the CALFED program and
ensure California will be able to meet its growing water needs. I also
want to thank my colleagues from California, Senator Boxer and
Congressman Miller for their hard work on CALFED reauthorization. I
would also like to commend Chairman Calvert for being open and
receptive to Members' with differing perspectives on how to move this
program forward.
This week, this Committee and both Chambers of Congress are busy
debating legislation to address our nation's energy needs. This is
obviously of great importance to California and my constituents who
have endured rolling blackouts and high energy costs in recent months.
Given this Committee's busy schedule, I am thankful that it has made
time to consider legislation to address California's water needs.
As California continues to grow, its water needs grow with it. I
believe that if we reauthorize the CALFED program this year, and are
balanced and forward-thinking about our planning, we can avoid making
water California's next crisis. The California Bay-Delta is one of our
nation's largest estuaries and it is the largest estuary on the West
Coast. It supplies drinking water for 22 million Californians, sustains
a multitude of fisheries, including several threatened and endangered
species, and irrigates seven million acres of the world's most
productive farmland.
The CALFED program consists of 18 state and federal agencies who
work with urban, agricultural, and environmental stakeholders to manage
this precious resource. As you know, Madame Chair, California water
wars are something they make movies about back home. Managing this
complex system is no easy task, and the smart men and women who labored
over the last six years to develop this Record of Decision deserve to
be commended. Given the mounting pressures on the Bay Delta, the goals
identified in the ROD are balanced and timely.
The ROD states and I quote, ``With the State's population expected
to grow from thirty-four million today to fifty-nine million in 2040,
the need to conserve, to build our capacity, and to manage our water
system more efficiently is no longer just a goal, it is a reality.''
I believe that S. 967 is comprehensive and goes a long way in
turning the goals of the ROD into realities for California. I am glad
that Senator Feinstein has made some changes to her original bill that
reflects some of the concerns raised by Governor Davis and the
environmental community. I understand that the new version moves away
from ``Preauthorization'' of construction projects to more of an
expedited review process. I agree with Senator Feinstein that these
projects need to be moved forward in order to meet the timelines
established in the ROD.
I also believe that Congress must have adequate oversight over the
environmental and economic reviews that these storage projects require.
On the issue of ``Assurances'' for users South of the Delta, I am glad
that the new version of S. 967 moves away from guaranteeing water
deliveries. However, I am still concerned that during dry years, this
section could adversely impact the health of the Delta and my
constituents' water quality, as well as invite more litigation.
I recognize that the agricultural community has legitimate water
needs, and I believe that the language in the Record of Decision
outlines the objectives to realistically move toward meeting those
needs. As a Member representing a growing suburban district with the
Bay-Delta in my backyard, I am committed to working to reauthorize
CALFED this year. The Record of Decision identifies three potential
storage sites, two of which are located in my District. Los Vaqueros,
which offers potential water quality benefits through storage and
blending; and the Delta Wetlands Project, or In-Delta Storage, which is
an innovative storage project with multiple potential benefits. I am
hopeful that the feasibility studies on these two projects can be
completed expeditiously.
I am also glad that S. 967 contains language that would authorize a
feasibility study of the Freeport Regional Project, which is a joint
effort between Sacramento and East Bay Municipal Utility District to
provide a supplemental supply for both regions. The project is
identified in the ROD as a ``complementary action'' and would be an
alternate source of supply for families and businesses during a
drought.
As I mentioned before, the ROD contains many laudable goals, that
if executed in a balanced and timely way, will restore the Bay-Delta's
ecosystem, enhance water quality and improve water supply reliability
for California businesses and farms. I applaud Senator Feinstein for
her diligence in moving this authorization bill forward. I recognize
that there are competing bills and amendments within our own
delegation. I believe that these diverse perspectives will foster a
healthy debate. And I am hopeful, that in the end, we'll be able to
reach agreement to reauthorize this vital program this year. The health
of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and our state's economy are depending on it.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you both very much. We really
appreciate your taking the time to come over here.
Congressman Miller. Thank you. We obviously want to work
with you. If we can answer any questions----
Senator Burns. We will both save the Nation.
Congressman Miller. Do what?
Senator Burns. We will both save the Nation.
Congressman Miller. We do it every day, every day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Moving right along, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Feinstein. We would be happy to have your
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Feinstein and
members of the committee.
As Congressman Miller and Congresswoman Tauscher leave, I
want to say what a pleasure it is to work, particularly with
Congressman Miller, as the senior member of the Resources
Committee. And he has been a great advisor to me, all the way
back in my days in the House when we were trying to get this
issue resolved, way back in the 1980's. He was the leader. And
I think it is great that we are all working together.
I want to start by thanking you, Senator Feinstein, for
your leadership on this committee to develop a bill that will
meet our needs. You and I and our staffs have worked closely
together on this effort, and I hope we could continue to do
that, as your bill is still a work in progress. And I think we
need to work closely together.
Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, we teamed up and we
saved the funding you had worked so hard to get in the
Appropriations Committee for CALFED. And I think that it is
important that we continue to work together on this.
As you have stated eloquently: In California, as in many
parts of the West, water is our life blood. And we all know
there are many important interests competing for this scarce
resource.
For decades, those interests have been fighting. Water
allocation was conducted through endless appeals and lawsuits,
something we want to avoid, divisive ballot initiatives, which
we want to avoid.
These battles were painful. As a matter of fact, one of my
very, very first forays into politics, when I was quite a bit
younger in my home county, was over a water ballot initiative.
We know that those debates and those fights prevented us from
resolving our State's very real water problems.
In 1994, a new State/Federal partnership called CALFED did
promise a better way through a plan to provide reliable clean
water to farms and businesses and millions of Californians,
while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and
environment. CALFED was and is committed to identifying a
solution that all water users could share.
I think this consensus approach is crucial, as I know you
do. I must say that I do worry that so far we do not have a
bill before us that reaches that consensus. Although it has
tremendous support, it also has some opposition.
And I would ask unanimous consent to enter in the record
along with the support of your bill, 33 groups that have
expressed deep concerns of opposition and support for my
amendments.
Some of those groups--I will just name a few--Save The Bay;
Sierra Club; League of Conservation Voters; California League
of Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council;
American Rivers; Trout Unlimited; Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen; League of Women Voters of California; Clean Water
Action. And I could go on, but in the interest of time, I will
just add California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance;
Sacramento River Preservation. But there are a number of other
groups.
However, I think we can work together and bring everyone on
board. And that is what my goal really is.
What I would like to do today is first say that there is
much in the bill that I really, really like. As we have worked
together and you have taken many of my suggestions--not all,
but some. And I appreciate that very much.
But because we have a time constraint, know that I support
a lot of the bill. I am just going to focus on a couple of
areas with which I have a disagreement and hope that as we move
together, we can perhaps be able to agree.
So let me say that the two amendments that I actually did
submit, I believe still are necessary. I have seen the latest
version of your bill late last night. So my comments are
directed to that version, knowing that you are still going to
work on it.
I think a lot of what I say mirrors Congressman Miller, but
I will not say it in exactly the same way, and I will not be as
colorful, but I will just get to where I think he is right.
Well, the first concern is a provision that many do believe
would confer a special guarantee of water rights to one water
district. And Congressman Miller said he was not sure that it
did.
Attorneys that have spoken to me from the Natural Resources
Defense Council and others say that even in the new version,
you could say that the South of Deltas water users are getting
special rights.
I appreciate the fact that you took some of the language I
had in the preamble of the legislation. That is where I think
this ought to go, the mention of this west lands issue should
go in the preamble.
I think--we have discussed that. We have a disagreement. I
think if it went there, it would be fine. It would clear this
matter up, but this is your choice.
I think at best that because it is in the main body of the
law it creates ambiguity and I worry also, as George Miller
does, that it would present a toehold for litigation.
I believe the bill's water supply assurance language should
be eliminated entirely or, in the amendment as I introduced,
move it to the findings and it could be in no way interpreted
to confer special rights.
We have some letters that support that approach, which I
ask unanimous consent to place in the record at this time.
Senator Feinstein. Those letters will be entered in the
record.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very, very much. The second issue
is very near and dear to my heart. We have talked about it a
lot, and staff to staff have talked about it a lot. And it
involves the method of authorizing the three water storage
projects, which may turn out to be just uncontroversial and
breeze right through.
I am pleased that the version of S. 976 that I saw
yesterday does not authorize these projects prior to the
completion of feasibility studies as the original bill did, so
thank you for making that change.
However, the new version of the bill expedites approval of
these projects in a way that eliminates any Senator's right to
modify or improve them, as Congressman Miller said. It also
fails to require a hearing of this committee or even a vote of
this committee. I would feel very strongly that at least a
hearing in this committee would be very, very important.
Did you respond to that point?
Senator Feinstein. I believe the latest draft provides for
a vote both in the committees and on the floor.
Senator Boxer. Okay. Because the one we saw did not require
a vote in the committee. It just said the committee had so many
days to consider it.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, we are happy to clarify that.
Senator Boxer. And then if there is----
Senator Feinstein. The intent is to have a vote.
Senator Boxer. Excellent. That would be great. Excellent.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Senator Boxer. I think that is a big help because if there
is a hearing or a meeting, then at least we can take a look at
these projects. That would be a tremendous step forward.
On the question of amending on the floor of the Senate, I
want to tell you why I feel so strongly about this. As a member
of the House in 1992, I was able to amend the Corps of
Engineers' report--I just want to make this point, because it
is so personal to me.
I was able to amend the Corps of Engineers' report that
recommended Auburn Dam--this was in 1992--so that instead, it
authorized better flood control operation at Folsum, so that we
were able to amend it and move it and change it.
Under the latest draft of the bill that I saw, I would be
unable to do that. You would not be able to do that. No member
would be able to change it. And I think that a take-it-or-
leave-it package from Secretary Norton now, or whoever in the
future years after we are long gone might be, I think that is
not a good thing for Senators to give up their right.
You have that normal, if you will, right to offer
amendments, review and change. As a matter of fact I would go
further. I think it would set a dangerous precedent that could
be applied to environmentally harmful or, say, budget busting
projects around the country. So I really like the idea of
keeping our ability to amend, and I think that is important.
My colleagues, I do happen to believe that normal
congressional process works. For example, since 1996, 21
California water projects have been authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act through the normal congressional
process, and I ask consent to place the names of these projects
into the record.
Senator Feinstein. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I think the same could be done for these projects. I do not
fear getting these projects authorized. I think these are going
to be good. I think we team up. We go to Senator Bingaman,
Senator Kyl, Senator Burns. I think we could do it, without
short-circuiting the normal process.
I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a number of
letters that deal with this issue and also an editorial that
appeared today in the Sacramento Bee.
Senator Feinstein. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. And I would say that one of these is from
Taxpayers for Common Sense, which supports my amendment on
this. And I think it lays out why they do not think we should
short circuit the process.
And the Sacramento Bee says, ``Tipping the scales now would
be wrong. Each reservoir project deserves to be judged on the
merits, how much it costs; how much water it provides; how much
flexibility it gives the managers of the State's interconnected
plumbing system; how it affects the environment; and who pays
for it. The projects under study by CALFED are worthy of
exploration, but it is inappropriate to judge them before all
the facts are in.''
So I think that if we take the normal process, then I agree
with George Miller, selling these projects to all of these
groups that are concerned, to our constituencies that may have
to vote to them are important. The last point I would make,
Madam Chair, in the last version we saw--and we have discussed
this with your staff; they say it was a mistake--but I just
want to put it on the record to make sure. It appears as if all
the projects in phase one of the record of decision would be
automatically authorized. In your original version, you said
only those under $10 million. Now, that is gone. So except for
these projects----
Senator Feinstein. The mistake was leg counsel left off the
$10 million.
Senator Boxer. Okay. Okay. Then I am greatly relieved.
Senator Feinstein. The $10 million is in there, which is
really the bulk of the environmental projects which
interestingly enough are all preauthorized.
Senator Boxer. Yes. Well, we----
Senator Feinstein. Without having to look at them or
evaluate them.
Senator Boxer. Well, if I just might say if you look at the
history of our State, as you well know, it is the dam projects
that--and I say that not as a curse word.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. It is these supply projects that people do
have more concern about.
Well, I think, Madam Chair, I hope we can come together. I
mean, I say that from the bottom of my heart. We have many
options. We can work together on this bill, which I hope we
will and because I think it is an omnibus bill, which I think
is good.
And if we can agree, we will resolve many issues; or we can
do something in--we can take a very simple non-controversial
reauthorization bill, if we have to.
Senator Feinstein. But we----
Senator Boxer. But I prefer to have our problems worked
out. Did you want to----
Senator Feinstein. No. I was just going to respond. See, I
tried very hard with all of the groups for years to get
consensus.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And I am of the view, very staunchly,
that we cannot solve our water problems without additional
storage. Now, Congressman Miller called it a dam. I do not call
it a dam.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I call it a reservoir. I believe very
firmly that we have to be able to take water from the wet
years, recharge our aquifers, store it, keep it for the dry
years.
Now, I am aware of the fact after all of this that there is
going to be objection no matter what, Madam Secretary, to any
storage project. Now, it is not only dams; it is storage
projects; that some people think this is a way to control
population.
I do not agree with that. I do not think you can control
population. I mean, we are going to be 50 million people in 20
years. I say: Let us get our State ready to be able to handle--
handle the problems that are--that are coming with increase in
population, increase in high-tech, which takes high quality
water, providing waters for farmers, which certainly it is the
biggest ag State in the Nation. And we cannot do it without
storage.
That is where I am. I campaigned on it. I won a campaign on
it. I am going to keep my word to the people, and I am going to
fight this thing out.
If we can agree on an expedited approval, I do not have a
problem with that, as long as we move both elements of this
whole thing together. But I am not going to find that we put $1
billion into one thing, and the area that would give us the
ability to go through those dry years is not touched.
Senator Boxer. Well, I do not disagree with anything you
said.
Senator Feinstein. That is kind of where I am.
Senator Boxer. I would just say I am a little more--I feel
a little more hopeful, because I think that the CALFED process
did bring people together. And the record of decision does try
to deal with both the supply of the water, the new projects,
plus environmental restoration, water for the farmers, for the
urban. I think all that--I feel more positive about that now.
We both ran winning campaigns. One of my platforms was
keeping all the people together. I mean, that is what I want to
do. I want to keep this consensus together.
I firmly believe that the amendments I have brought to
you--this is my belief, and you do not have to agree, and we
will discuss it, but I think that those amendments would, in
fact, bring more consensus, because I think by skirting the
normal process, which is a huge decision for this committee to
make if they want to do a special process, I think it creates
some problems out there with a lot of people who are business
people in the fisheries industry and elsewhere.
So let me close this way: I could not agree more that we
have to increase water for the entire State. And you know, the
CALFED does not even deal with the entire State, per se. And I
am working with Representative Farr on a bill called CalAqua
that will provide hundreds of thousands of acre feet--actually
more acre feet than these three projects, not as much so far in
our bill as the entire authorization would eventually bring,
but that would bring these hundreds of thousands of acre feet
through methods such as ground water, recharged water
efficiency, water recycling that we are--Sam Farr and I are
very excited about working on. And I am very anxious to show
you the bill when it is ready for introduction.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify. You
and I have great respect for each other. And we do not always
agree on every little thing, but we agree on the end goal.
This is an issue. You and I talked, and we said we have a
crisis in California with electricity. We do not want a crisis
with water.
You do not want it. I do not want it. And I am looking at a
way to make sure we can get projects built and not have
lawsuits and not have delaying tactics, and not have our
colleagues worry about new precedents for California that we do
not have elsewhere.
I am glad that your bill is still open to new ideas and we
will stay close to it, and work with you.
And, again, I thank you for your leadership on this
committee.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. All right.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Do you have any questions, Senator, or we will move onto
the next panel. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. All right. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Senator Feinstein. Secretary Norton and Secretary Nichols,
if you would come forward please.
[Pause.]
Senator Feinstein. Madam Secretary, I would just like to
welcome you, and I really thank you so much for sitting through
the prior testimony. I really think it is important that you
heard all aspects of this.
And I want to thank you also for putting that $20 million
again into the budget. We really appreciate the support of the
administration on this. And so if we may, we will begin with
you and then go to Secretary Nichols.
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Secretary Norton. All right. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairman. I certainly do appreciate the opportunity to hear
today's discussions so far and to provide the Department's
comments on S. 976.
I ask permission to submit my full remarks for the record
and to summarize the Department's position here.
Senator Feinstein. So ordered.
Secretary Norton. S. 976 would authorize funding through
the Department of the Interior as well as governance and
management authorities for the implementation of the CALFED
Bay-Delta program, a comprehensive, balanced and timely water
management and environmental restoration program.
The Bay-Delta is an area of critical environmental
importance as well as the hub of the State's water supply
system, providing drinking water for more than 22 million
Californians, important habitat for over 750 plant and animal
species, irrigation water for most of the State's $27 billion
agricultural sector, and provides water that is essential to
the manufacturing and commercial sectors of the State.
The administration supports CALFED's goals of increasing
water yield, protecting the environment, improving water system
and supply reliability, water quality, and providing watershed
management, water transfers and levee protection.
As this committee can well appreciate, our new
administration faced a substantial number of major resources
issues of high priority. In the area of water, virtually every
Western State has issues of concern and controversy demanding
our attention.
We just had two new officials, who took office this week,
the day before yesterday. And that is the Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science, Bennett Raley, and the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation, John Keys. And they, of course, will
be playing a very key role in the decisions that are made here.
In addition, the White House yesterday announced two
additional officials who will be involved when they are
confirmed. And that is Craig Manson for Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who is from California; as well as
Steve Williams for Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
In summary, we have two who have not yet been confirmed; and
two who are brand new to their positions.
The new ones have already offered great insights to us in
their couple of days on the job. And we look forward to their
insight, as we study the projects further.
On the Columbia River, the Colorado River and in the
Central Valley of California, among others, we are beginning
our examination of multi-year, multi-million dollar planning
and negotiating efforts.
On all of the matters before us, one conclusion is
universally applicable: We will continue to work towards
solutions, and we will make decisions that reflect the
President's commitment to the balanced and sensible resolution
of resource issues affecting our Nation.
Before I get into the specifics of the Department's
position on CALFED, let me describe my own perspective on water
issues. As attorney general for the State of Colorado, I came
to understand that water issues need to be planned decades into
the future and not just a few years.
Well, California is obviously a fast growing State, as you
mentioned in your remarks. Its population continues to expand
rapidly, especially in water scarce areas like southern
California. With more people comes the demand for more water.
That is why I was pleased when I first talked with you,
Senator Feinstein, about CALFED, to learn about your effort to
grapple with California's long-term agricultural, municipal and
environmental water needs. I greatly respect your leadership on
this subject. And I am very pleased by the process that has
brought together so many people to discuss these issues.
More recently, my Department has experienced the problems
that arise when there is insufficient water to meet all needs.
In the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, we have seen the
tragic effect on farm families when there is not enough water
for both agricultural and environment water needs. We are
working now to find solutions for the future of the Klamath
area.
Throughout the West, we need to plan ahead to balance the
competing demands for water. Through long-term planning, it is
possible to create mechanisms that allow better, more fine-
tuned water management. This allows scarce water resources to
be stretched to meet the needs of fish, wildlife, natural
ecosystems, agriculture and people.
I was pleased to hear that CALFED brought all of the
affected interests to the table to hammer out compromises. This
is clearly the process that we must pursue in order to balance
water use and storage, with water for ecosystem maintenance.
As part of my first trip to California as Secretary, I was
pleased to have the opportunity to fly over the Central Valley
and to look closely at the many projects that are a part of the
California water system, and to see how interconnected those
things are. This is a very important issue, and I really wanted
to learn more about it.
The Department of the Interior supports the comprehensive
and integrated nature of the proposed actions and the
commitment to a credible science program to support the CALFED
decision making process. The manner in which Federal and State
administrations have worked is a model for solutions to
resource management problems.
Clearly, significant progress has been made in the
dedication of State and Federal monies for ecosystem
improvements in the Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta and the San
Francisco Bay.
On the Federal side, Congress has already appropriated
nearly $500 million for CALFED-related efforts, California
Central Valley Improvement Act efforts, and CALFED-type
initiatives.
Obviously, outstanding issues still need resolution. And we
are committed to finding those solutions with this committee,
with Congress, with Governor Davis, and with the affected
stakeholders.
S. 976 is an important step forward. We support the
purposes and many of the provisions of the bill. However, we
still have a number of concerns with the bill as written, and
we believe some modifications are needed.
We must fulfill our obligation to taxpayers and scrutinize
plans to make sure they are cost-effective. And we wish to
stress the importance of several of the measures and to work
with you on making appropriate changes.
The history of the settlement of California and the ensuing
development of its water resources is full of political and
legal battles. Although agreement on water management may not
be immediate, the CALFED program is a step in reaching a common
vision.
CALFED represents a new approach to an old problem. By
combining the interests of State and Federal agencies with
rural regulatory--with regulatory power over the Bay-Delta with
those of urban, environmental and agricultural users, the
CALFED program is moving California toward more equitable and
efficient water and ecosystem management.
Continued implementation of CALFED offers the opportunity
for a long-term solution to the critical problems confronting
the Bay-Delta. The Department is aware of the importance of
meeting its environmental commitments and the importance to
water users of adequate water supply reliability. For these
reasons, the Department will continue to work through the
CALFED process to improve the environment and increase the
system's water management flexibility.
We believe that the bill attempts to offer a balanced
approach toward implementing the ROD commitments and would
allow the Federal Government sufficient authority to continue
to participate in the CALFED program.
We look forward to working with the committee and others in
Congress to address this administration's concerns. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Norton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gale A. Norton, Secretary,
Department of the Interior
I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee to provide the
Department's testimony on S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water
Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.
S. 976 would authorize funding through the Secretary of the
Interior, as well as governance and management authorities, for the
implementation of a comprehensive, balanced, and timely water
management and environmental restoration program in California commonly
referred to as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, as reflected in the
Federal Record of Decision (ROD) issued August 28, 2000. The purpose of
the program is to increase water yield and environmental benefits, as
well as improved water system reliability, water quality, water use
efficiency, watershed management, water transfers, and levee
protection.
As the Committee can imagine, our new Administration faced a
substantial number of major resource issues of high priority upon
assuming office. In the area of water, virtually every western state
has issues of concern and controversy demanding our attention. With the
confirmation of Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Bennett Raley
and Commissioner of Reclamation John Keys we are able to begin dealing
substantively with many of the issues before us. We await the
nomination and confirmation of an Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks and a Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
further assist interagency efforts.
On the Columbia River, the Colorado River and in the Central Valley
of California, among others, we are beginning our examination of the
results of multi-year, multi-million dollar planning and negotiation
efforts. We are looking not only at the results of these enormous work
efforts but also at the process used, both internal and external, and
the information that was relied upon to make decisions. In addition we
are examining the data which provided insight on the biological and
socio-economic consequences of these major resource initiatives.
On all of the matters before us, one conclusion is uniformly
applicable: we will continue to work toward solutions and we will make
decisions that reflect the President's commitment to the balanced and
sensible resolution of resource issues across our Nation.
In the case of CALFED, we find the comprehensive and integrated
nature of actions proposed and the commitment to the development of a
credible science program in support of the decision making process are
all laudable. The manner in which federal and state administrations
have worked may be considered a model for solutions to resource
management problems. Likewise, we feel that we can secure similar
success in achieving the goals of CALFED in the context of our
responsibilities in all western states.
Clearly, significant progress has been made in the dedication of
state and federal monies for ecosystem improvements in the watersheds
that constitute the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco
Bay. On the Federal side, Congress has appropriated nearly $500 million
for CALFED related efforts, for Central Valley Project Improvement Act
and CALFED initiatives focused on improving the aquatic and terrestrial
habitats of the CALFED solution area.
A Record of Decision is in place that captures years of planning on
all program elements of ecosystem restoration, levee system integrity
and improvement, water supply and reliability improvements, water
quality improvement, improved water use and efficiency, improvements to
the upper watersheds, water transfers, storage, and conveyance.
Congress needs to authorize the CALFED program so we can proceed
with balanced progress on all resource fronts. The Department also
recognizes that outstanding issues are still in need of resolution and
we are committed to finding those solutions expeditiously and in
concert with this Committee, with the Congress, the administration of
Governor Davis and the stakeholders who have been so actively and
constructively involved.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Committee for
your obvious commitment to making significant progress with the CALFED
program. I also appreciate the consistent concerns demonstrated by this
Committee that progress be made and for your work efforts in developing
the bill being considered today. Your continued willingness to work
with the Department and the Administration on this matter is of real
and continuing importance to us.
S. 976 is an important step forward. Clearly, additional
authorizing legislation is required to proceed with the complete
program. We support the purposes and many of the provisions of the
bill. However, we also have a number of concerns with the bill as
written, and we believe some modifications are necessary. We would like
to continue working with the Committee to achieve a bill we can fully
support and which will implement the CALFED program consistent with the
ROD and agreements reached in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994 and the
CALFED framework agreement. We note that S. 976, like other CALFED
legislation before the Congress, would be quite expensive.
The results of the CALFED planning process reflect an attempt to
balance competing needs and interests. The CALFED planning process
brought together agricultural, urban, environmental and business
stakeholders with the state and federal agencies in an effort to build
agreements on the approaches to managing California's complex water and
natural resource issues. We recognize that solutions to any set of
problems as large and interconnected as those facing California will be
complex. However, all interests must respect the needs and concerns of
others. The CALFED ROD attempts to recognize the core interests of all
the parties and build a solution that reduces the conflicts in the
existing and long-established system and to balance competing interests
for comprehensive progress. In addition, consideration should be given
to analysis of impacts of the ROD on tribal trust assets, as discussed
in the ROD. With the support of Congress and the State of California,
CALFED can lead the way in a collaborative process that includes
extensive participation of all stakeholders to provide many long-term
solutions to California's water management and infrastructure
improvement needs.
The ``Fed'' side of the CALFED Program demonstrates a cooperative
planning and coordination effort among ten Federal agencies, including
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the
U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land Management, within the
Department of the Interior, as well as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and Western Area Power Administration.
CALFED HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a response to the water management
and ecosystem problems that came so clearly into focus in the drought
of 1987 to 1992 experienced within the Bay-Delta system. Furthermore,
the historic and ongoing conflicts between water management for supply
and fishery protection give rise to the urgency of the CALFED program.
The waters of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is the largest estuary in the West
Coast, and discharges into the San Francisco Bay and to the Pacific
Ocean. The Bay-Delta is a maze of waterways and channels that carry
over 40 percent of the State's total runoff to the Bay and provides
drinking water for more than 22 million Californians, important habitat
for over 750 plant and animal species, irrigation water for most of the
$27 billion agricultural sector, and water essential to the
manufacturing and commercial sectors of the State. Over the past
decades, California has witnessed declines in water quality, fish,
wildlife and associated habitat, and the reliability of water supplies.
The goals of CALFED, which the Administration fully support, are to
reverse all these trends.
In December 1994, the State and Federal governments signed the Bay-
Delta Accord, which signaled a new approach to managing the Delta and
finding solutions to longstanding problems in California. In 1995,
CALFED was initiated as a cooperative, interagency effort to reduce
conflicts in the Bay-Delta, modernize water management and
infrastructure, and to make investments aimed at reducing stressors for
species and improving the habitat. The CALFED Program has been
envisioned as a three-phase process:
Phase I objectives were to identify and define the problems
confronting the Bay-Delta System and develop a mission
statement, program objectives, and alternative actions for
further study. During Phase I CALFED concluded that each
program alternative would include a significant set of program
actions which were grouped into elements to address problems
associated with the ecosystem and water management
infrastructure.
Phase II objectives were to develop a preferred program
alternative, conduct a comprehensive programmatic environmental
review process, and develop an implementation plan focusing on
the first 7 years (Stage 1 of implementation). Phase II
objectives were achieved through issuance of the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (IS/AIR) in July 2000 and a Record of Decision
signed on August 28, 2000.
CALFED is currently in Phase III, a long-term process
implementing specific actions to achieve the goals of the
CALFED program. Phase III objectives are to implement the plan
selected in the IS/AIR over the next 25 to 30 years. Stage 1 of
implementation, for the first 7 years, is underway. Site-
specific, detailed environmental review and feasibility level
analysis will occur during Stage 1 prior to implementation of
each proposed action.
CALFED PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In the past several years substantial progress has been made on a
number of complex water and natural resource issues through the
combined efforts of the public and state and federal agencies working
together as CALFED. The greatest accomplishment of the CALFED effort so
far is bringing all the State and Federal agencies together to produce
the CALFED Record of Decision, signed August 28, 2000, which documents
the comprehensive plan for improving California's water supply and
water quality, as well as restoring ecological health in the Bay Delta.
This Committee has received copies of the most recent annual report of
accomplishments which details progress in many CALFED program areas. We
particularly would like to bring your attention to the many creative
approaches to addressing historic areas of conflict such as the
Environmental Water. Account.
Also of interest is the CALFED Science Program. We expect this
program to provide peer review of the science and information
underlying all elements of the CALFED program from adaptive management,
to ecosystem improvement projects, to project operations and beyond, we
expect CALFED to be supported by a strong and credible science program.
Public workshops have been and are being undertaken by the program
on scientific components of public controversies and are clarifying the
state of scientific knowledge, thereby reducing the level of
controversy. In the near term, these workshops include issues
associated with Delta Cross channel operations, effectiveness of the
Environmental Water Account for salmon and Delta smelt, salinity
effects of levee breaches, and the use of scientific adaptive
management. Additional workshops will be undertaken as topics are
identified.
CALFED FUNDING
From FY 1998 to FY 2000, Congress appropriated $190 million for the
CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program and an additional $30 million for
other program elements, including projects to improve water supply
reliability. These funds were provided through an account in the Bureau
of Reclamation budget, but funding for specific projects or programs
has been transferred to participating Federal agencies based on plans
developed by CALFED. As noted above, CALFED agencies have used these
and other funds to screen water diversions for the benefit of fish and
farmers, restore degraded habitat, establish an environmental water
program, develop conjunctive use projects and develop a state and
federal water operations plan. No funds were provided for this account
in FY 2001, largely because the appropriations committees deferred to
the authorizing committees to review the Program and develop any needed
legislation.
The ROD outlines a partnership of State, Federal, and private
funding, and estimated that a total of $8.7 billion from state,
federal, and private sources would be needed for the Program's
implementation. According to Governor Davis, the State is moving
forward to finance implement actions called for in the ROD. In order to
support the Federal side of this unique partnership, it is important
that appropriate legislation be enacted to authorize Federal Government
participation as contemplated by the ROD.
BENEFITS OF S. 976
The Bay Delta is the hub of the State's water supply system and an
area of unsurpassed ecological importance. Single-purpose efforts to
solve problems in the past have failed to adequately address the
comprehensive nature of the Bay-Delta resources and problems and the
conflicts between supply and demand. S. 976 would provide authorization
for continued Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and
to meet Record of Decision commitments. As such, the Administration
supports many elements of this bill, recognizing that some modifying
language may be needed.
In particular we are supportive of three primary principles
outlined in the bill.
Balanced Approach--The authorizing language meets the CALFED
principle of comprehensive planning by outlining and providing
authority to carry out a water supply plan to promote the ecological
health and improve water management in the Bay Delta.
Measurable Goals and Objectives--The legislation would provide for
developing measurable goals and objectives for implementing and
documenting ``significant'' progress in achieving the ROD's program
elements and the proposed ecosystem enhancement and water supply
program actions. Further, the legislation calls for utilizing credible
and objective scientific review and basing decisions on the ``best
available, independently peer-reviewed information.''
Governance, Local Coordination, and Public Involvement--The
legislation affirms that the participating Federal agencies would help
operate the Bay-Delta Program through a permanent governance structure
that encourages local and regional partnerships in implementing the
Program. The legislation also specifies that State area-of-origin
rights would be preserved. Further, the legislation recognizes the need
for participating Federal agencies to cooperate with state, local, and
tribal governments, non-governmental organizations and the public to
obtain input on program implementation planning, design, technical
assistance, ecosystem restoration, and peer review of science efforts.
CONCERNS WITH S. 976
Despite the progress that has been accomplished through the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program, the Administration has some significant concerns
relative to the legislation before the Subcommittee today. In addition
to the major concerns noted below, we would like to work with the
Committee to address technical and other changes as it considers this
legislation.
Cost Sharing--One of the central components of the ROD is the
notion of ``beneficiary pays,'' whereby users who benefit from
investments in the infrastructure should pay for those benefits. The
ROD contemplated the Federal Government, the State, and project
beneficiaries each sharing roughly one-third of the costs of
implementation. S. 976 generally establishes a maximum Federal cost-
share of 50% for each project or activity, but does not otherwise
indicate how the cost-share should be determined. We do not object to
the 50% ceiling, however, we believe that the cost-sharing should
otherwise be consistent with current law or policies. Depending on the
project purpose, under current law local sponsors are required to
provide up to 100 percent of a project's cost (e.g., for costs
allocated to municipal and industrial water supply projects). We wish
to stress the importance of clarifying and integrating cost-sharing
measures into the program. We would like to clarify that assignment of
operation and maintenance costs will be consistent with general
policies.
Project Authorizations--We are also concerned about provisions of
the bill that seem to authorize construction of projects before they
have completed the normal Administration review of economic and
environmental feasibility. Some language also circumvents Congressional
oversight of individual projects. Consistent with longstanding
policies, we believe that authorization for construction should be
provided only after the Administration and Congress have completed a
full and favorable review of project economics and environmental
feasibility.
Authorization of Appropriations--Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the
legislation state that appropriations are authorized ``. . . in such
sums as are necessary . . .'' to carry out the actions authorized by
the particular section. This appears to imply that there is unlimited
funding authority for implementing the CALFED Program. Further, it is
not clear whether all appropriations will be coming through the
Department of the Interior, or whether the concept of a cross-cut
budget will be employed and appropriations will be made directly to the
participating Federal agencies which, in some instances, would lead to
greater efficiency.
Reporting and Oversight--In general, the reporting and oversight
requirements are unclear; it is not apparent which agency is
specifically responsible for the compilation of data for submission to
Congress. The ROD states that the CALFED staff would be responsible for
associated program reporting requirements, however the legislation
implies that this would be the responsibility of the Secretary of the
Interior.
CONCLUSION
The history of the settlement of California and the ensuing
development of its water resources is replete with political and legal
battles. Although agreement on water management may not be immediately
achievable, the CALFED Program is a step in reaching a common vision of
actions needed for progress. CALFED represents a new approach to an old
problem by combining the interests of state and federal agencies with
regulatory power over the Bay Delta together with urban, environmental,
and agricultural users, who each have a vested interest in the
maintenance and improvement of the Bay-Delta. The CALFED Program has
shown water managers, policy makers and the public how to move
California toward more equitable and efficient water and ecosystem
management. Continued implementation of the CALFED plan offers the
opportunity for a long-term solution to the critical problems
confronting the Bay-Delta. Specifically, the Department will continue
to operate the Central Valley Project in accordance with the provisions
of the State's Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable
statutes. The Department is aware of the importance of meeting its
environmental commitments, and the importance to the water users of
adequate water supply reliability. For these reasons, the Department
will continue to work through the CALFED process to improve the
environment, and increase the system's water management flexibility.
We believe that the bill attempts to offer a balanced approach
toward implementing the ROD commitments and would allow the Federal
government sufficient authority to continue to participate in the
CALFED program. We look forward to working with the Committee and
others in Congress to address the Administration's concerns. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the Committee
and others for continuing to work with the Department to address the
significant water and environmental issues facing the West.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Secretary Norton.
Before I move to Secretary Nichols, we really appreciate
your comments. I know you have staffing problems. Now, that
they are getting solved and you got people on board, I think
that is great.
When do you think you would be able to provide us with some
specifics in terms of what you would advise vis-a-vis changes
or amendments?
Secretary Norton. We will work with you to try to provide
that information as we are able to reach decisions on
particular points that we would like to offer you. We will
certainly work with you as quickly as possible.
Senator Feinstein. Because of the appropriation situation,
we really need to move this bill as soon as possible.
Secretary Norton. All right. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, appreciate it.
Secretary Nichols, thank you again for coming so far and
appreciate hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Secretary Nichols. Thank you, Senator. You also have our
written testimony and, if I may, I will just submit that for
the record and----
Senator Feinstein. Without objection.
Secretary Nichols. Great.
Let me just add a couple of comments, and then I know you
are going to want to ask some questions of me and Secretary
Norton.
First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am by the
support that we have received to date, knowing first-hand the
difficulties of getting a new administration going and getting
staffing. I appreciate very much the support that we have had
from the Department of the Interior in moving the CALFED
program forward to date.
I have to say a word about consensus, as I wish to embrace
not only your bill, Senator, and the process that you have been
so ably steering here, but also my other Senator stands
squarely with both of you in trying to achieve consensus on
legislation.
CALFED is often referred to as a consensus process. The
fact is we went 6 years without really achieving a consensus
until finally there were some deadlines facing us. And a small
group of people who you helped to convene and to basically push
and prod and cajole into achieving a final result said, ``This
is going to be the result,'' and then went back to all the
various stakeholders and said, ``We need your support on
this.'' And we negotiated and we worked hard with them. And we
achieved a result in the record of decision, which I believe is
a consensus.
But it never would have happened if we had just waited for
people to miraculously achieve that degree of consensus on
their own. There has to be leadership. And your leadership in
moving forward with this bill is very much appreciated.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Secretary Nichols. We want to associate ourselves with your
efforts and also to say that we really appreciate the
flexibility that you have shown and have indicated your
willingness to show in making sure that you do bring all the
parties along with you as you move forward.
It is extremely important for California that we get this
program reauthorized this year and also get the Federal funding
that is needed to make all of these very ambitious programs for
solving California's environmental and water supply problems
work.
Let me just say a word about how we approach some of the
issues about the questions that have been raised about the
legislation, specifically the language about assurances and the
language about the expedited process. And really it arises from
the same philosophical approach.
When I was appointed to my position over 2 years ago by
Governor Davis, he made it very clear to me that in dealing
with California water issues, it was going to be absolutely
essential that we keep all the stakeholders at the table in a
situation where everyone felt a great deal of lack of
confidence and lack of trust.
We have a situation where we have very strong laws that
mandate that we achieve improvements in our ecosystem. We may
not have done it as well as we should or as quickly as we
should. We certainly need better money--we need more money and
better science and so forth.
But in the area of assuring water supplies to our cities
and to our farmers, we do not have a similar legal mandate. We
do not believe that your bill creates a new legal mandate, but
we do believe that it goes in the direction that the ROD tried
to go of mandating the efforts of the agencies that be
sincerely and seriously put behind those measures that we all
agree are needed, if we are going to give a degree of
assurance.
That is the line that we have tried to walk. I know it is
the line that you have been trying to walk. If the language
does not make everybody sufficiently comfortable, you know, we
are willing to work with you to improve it. But that is what I
believe you have been trying to achieve.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Secretary Nichols. And it is very much what the Governor
wants to see happen.
Secondly, with respect to the process on storage projects
in particular, we named those three projects that you have
identified in your bill as being projects that we thought had a
high degree of likelihood of being able to survive very
stringent environmental and economic reviews.
We did not mandate the outcome. We said we will do the
studies, and we put ourselves on a very aggressive time track
to try to get those done.
I want to be clear, and I know you have been clear, that we
never intended to short circuit any of that process whatsoever
getting to a recommendation. And we agreed that we would submit
those to the Congress then for authorization.
We understand that you have been grappling with the process
to then expedite that authorization and to be able to get
funding. We do not pretend to have the expertise in how the
congressional process works that you have or your staffs have.
But if there is anything that we can do to assist you in
that effort, we would like to do that. And other than that, I
would just like to say thanks again for holding this hearing
and for helping to move the process forward.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Nichols follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary D. Nichols, Secretary for Resources,
State of California
Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for convening today's hearing
and for inviting me to testify on the ``California Ecosystem, Water
Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001'' (S. 976), introduced
by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
I would like to applaud Senator Feinstein at the outset for her
leadership on California water issues. She has played an instrumental
role in bringing together diverse parties in order to find consensus on
an issue of tremendous complexity and importance to California and the
nation.
Before I address the specifics of the legislation, let me place the
issue in a broader context.
Over the past five years, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program has operated
as a collaborative, cooperative effort among local, State and Federal
governments. With the release of the ``Framework for Action'' and
Record of Decision last summer, we have shifted gears in a significant
manner. Planning is now taking a back seat to the actual process of
implementing an ambitious, far-reaching set of projects and programs
aimed at improving water management and restoring ecological health in
the Bay-Delta system.
In light of this major transition, it is important to emphasize
that California alone cannot carry out the CALFED plan. CALFED has
been--and must continue to be--a close working partnership between
Federal and State agencies. Federal agencies play critical roles in
implementing the CALFED plan. And federal funding is imperative for
continued coordination and to maintain the forward movement towards
solving California's water issues.
In addition to maintaining the collaborative nature of the program,
I want to briefly touch upon other fundamental concepts that should be
incorporated in legislation to ensure that CALFED stays on track to
meet its commitments.
First, the Federal agencies need clear direction and authority to
continue participation in CALFED coordination efforts and in
implementation of the CALFED plan.
CALFED presently consists of 24 member agencies, including 13
Federal agencies. In order to ensure coordination and effective
implementation, these agencies need clear direction to participate in
the program.
Second, the Federal agencies need authorization and funding to
continue participation in the successful implementation of the
commitments outlined in the CALFED plan.
CALFED's ambitious scope and timeline require both State and
Federal funding to ensure balanced implementation. California has
invested heavily in CALFED. In last year's State budget, Governor Davis
and the California Legislature appropriated over $500 million. While
the current fiscal year State budget has yet to be finalized, we
anticipate over $500 million again will be appropriated.
If Federal funding is not provided in fiscal year 2002, CALFED will
not stay on track and the momentum that has been created over the past
six years will come to a grinding halt. Federal and State courtrooms
will once again be littered with litigation regarding the California
water crisis.
Third, the Bush administration must direct the Federal agencies to
take actions to meet commitments in the CALFED plan for which
authorization already exists including the water supply targets for
Westside San Joaquin valley farmers.
The CALFED plan establishes a delivery target for Central Valley
Project south-of-Delta agriculture water service contractors of 65-70%
of contract entitlements in normal water years. More than simply a
provision addressing a particular group of water users, this issue has
come to represent CALFED's commitment to a balanced program that
considers the needs of all stakeholders.
Following years of litigation and after months of negotiations, the
Record of Decision commits federal and state agencies to operate the
CALFED program in ways that will increase water supply for south-of-
Delta agriculture water service contractors, while at the same time
avoid additional litigation over the Endangered Species Act or water
rights.
While it may be tempting to mandate this target, legislating a
specific outcome with respect to water delivery will immediately invite
more litigation and gridlock.
The commitment embodied in the Record of Decision is clear. The
challenge for CALFED is carrying out that commitment. We have
recommended amendments to federal authorizing legislation that is
consistent with the ROD and unambiguously directs the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to implement the tools necessary
to carry out those provisions. Senator Feinstein's bill contains this
language.
Fourth, legislation must be consistent with the CALFED Record of
Decision (ROD).
This is a vitally important issue from the standpoint of ensuring
the continued support of stakeholder interests as well as the
California Legislature. The CALFED ROD calls for a balanced approach to
implementation. Furthermore, all aspects of the program are
interrelated and interdependent. Ecosystem restoration is dependent
upon supply and conservation. Supply is dependent upon water use and
efficiency and consistency in regulation. Water quality is dependent
upon improved conveyance, levee stability and healthy watersheds. The
success of all the elements depends on expanded and more strategically
managed storage.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the basic elements that must be
included in any legislative proposal to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program. Conformity with the ROD is clearly our touchstone. At
the same time, we fully realize that other elements that transcend the
ROD have been incorporated in legislative efforts to reauthorize
CALFED. Such provisions will be examined on the basis of whether they
help achieve implementation of CALFED and whether they are consistent
with the spirit and letter of the ROD.
Based on the criteria I have outlined above, we believe that
Senator Feinstein's bill meets the test. It recognizes the importance
of the CALFED process, the Record of Decision, and the critical need
for Congress to provide significant levels of federal funding for vital
programs--a need that grows more marked with each passing week in a
year that has brought California lower than normal precipitation. For
these reasons, the State of California supports Senator Feinstein's
legislation and urges expeditious consideration by this Subcommittee
and the U.S. Senate.
Governor Davis recognizes the need for CALFED reauthorization bills
in the House and Senate to move forward this year to ensure adequate
funding to meet California's pressing water needs. I assure you that
the Governor and I look forward to working with interested Members of
Congress to reconcile the differences among the bills to ensure that
these efforts are consistent with the CALFED plan.
CALIFORNIANS AND THE COUNTRY NEED CALFED
I want to take a moment to offer a sense of the importance and
scope of CALFED and what it means to the people of California and the
nation.
CALFED's integrated plan to restore ecological health and improve
water management in the Bay-Delta is:
The most complex and extensive ecosystem restoration project
ever proposed;
The most intensive water conservation effort ever attempted;
The most far-reaching effort to improve the drinking water
quality for over 22 million Californians;
An unprecedented commitment to science and watershed
restoration;
The most significant investment in storage, conveyance and
Delta levees in decades.
The Central Valley of California includes over 80 percent of all
irrigable land in our State and provides up to 50 percent of the
Nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Providing a consistent water
supply to California farmers is clearly a matter of national economic
importance. In addition, our commercial fisheries require a healthy
river and Delta ecosystem. Central Valley salmon provide more than 50
percent of the harvest from the California, Oregon and Washington
coasts. Finally, Silicon Valley--a major engine of the national
economy--requires a firm and high quality water supply.
The CALFED program represents an innovative approach to addressing
water in California. It will ensure adequate and reliable water
supplies for its farmers, cities, and environment. It is the only
program ever to win support from all major interest groups in all parts
of this large and diverse State.
In short, the benefits of the CALFED program will go far beyond
California's borders. Ensuring adequate and quality water supplies will
have tremendously positive economic and environmental impacts
throughout the entire country. Congressional action to reauthorize the
CALFED program this year is clearly in the national interest.
CONCLUSION
More than six years of arduous negotiations have brought us to this
point. CALFED has created a new framework for resolving competing
demands on California's water resources. Now it is time to get on with
the job. That will take hard work, a renewed commitment from the
Federal government, and the financial resources to make it happen.
Thanks to the leadership of Governor Davis and the California
Legislature, combined with the wisdom of California voters in approving
two successive water bond initiatives, California has delivered its
share of funding. It is time for Congress to pass a reauthorization
bill that provides urgently needed investments consistent with the
CALFED plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Senator Feinstein. I am going to ask some specific
questions quickly, if I might. And then I want to go to the
other two Senators.
Madam Secretary, as you are aware, some environmental
groups have come out in opposition to this bill. I would like
to know whether you and the Governor specifically support the
assurance language that we have discussed with you, which we
believe does not mandate, but replicates the ROD.
Secretary Nichols. Yes, Senator, we have helped to draft
that language and we do not believe that it has the problem
that has been identified.
However, I would hasten to add that I am not someone who
has litigated these water cases over many years. I respect the
comment that Congressman Miller made about his fear that there
might be litigation that would result.
And I know you have indicated a willingness to, you know,
to look at that. But from our point of view, the need is there
to give assurances, and we believe that the language there does
that without specifically creating any new water rights.
Senator Feinstein. Do you think it is possible for
California to meet all of its future water needs without any
new infrastructure whatsoever?
Secretary Nichols. Absolutely not. Clearly, we are going to
have to invest heavily in infrastructure and as my written
testimony indicated, the State of California has already
stepped up to the plate.
We had $500 million last year and $500 million this year in
bond money that the voters of California approved that is going
towards projects that will do everything from improving water
conveyance to dealing with leaky pipes and spills of sewage on
our beaches.
Our system is overtaxed as it is and we know we are going
to have to be spending in the coming years and decades heavily
to bring it up to what is needed.
Senator Feinstein. Do you think it is possible for
California to meet its water needs and wean itself from its
overdraw of the Colorado River without a massive effort to
institute CALFED?
Secretary Nichols. Well, Senator, as you know, when we
worked on the 4.4 plan and have worked hard with then Secretary
Babbitt and with our neighboring States on trying to get
California to within its mandated limits on what we can draw
from the Colorado River, we made some commitments that we would
do certain important physical projects that would help us
achieve that goal.
And a big part of what we were relying on was improvements
in ground water, improvements in surface storage and conveyance
that would enable us to get down to that level, as well as to
very important conservation programs, both in the urban and
agricultural sectors.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks. Thanks very much.
Madam Secretary, I heard that--and this--you did not
mention it in your remarks and I have not had a chance to read
your written remarks, but what we did, in our view, on the
issue of beneficiary pay issue was essentially replicate the
record of decision, which says there shall be beneficiary pays
but CALFED will make that decision as to exactly the specifics.
Now, I am aware that some environmental groups do not feel
that that language is strong enough and they want to spell it
out in bill language. I have been concerned about that, because
once you do bill language, regardless of what circumstances
are, you are stuck with it.
Do you have concerns about the beneficiary pay language,
and if you do, what would you like to see?
Secretary Nichols. The cost area issue is one of those on
which we would like to work with you closely to make sure that
it is consistent with what we would like to see.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I would like to do that sooner
rather than later, if that is an agreement.
Secretary Nichols. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, both, very much.
Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I
would note that Secretary Norton is already working with some
of us in Arizona on a project of ours. It is not exactly
similar, but it is of the same general nature and Secretary
Norton has been very helpful so far. And I am sure that, as she
indicated, she will be as helpful in trying to work through
some of the problems and issues with respect to this program.
I had a couple of questions for Ms. Nichols, if I could.
The CALFED briefing book, which has a lot of information in it,
called CALFED Bay-Delta Program Briefing Book, July 2001,* has
on page 20 a chart which shows the potential for about 3
million acre feet of water that could be developed as a result
of a combination of things, from urban conservation to
agricultural conservation, water reclamation, conveyances and
operations improvements, and supply improvements from new
storage. The latter category would supply roughly half a
million acre feet out of the 3 million, as I see it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the comment under the chart reads, ``Partnerships with
local and regional agencies to jointly implement water
management programs and actions could increase California water
supplies by nearly 3 million acre feet over the next 10 years,
enough water to meet the needs of 6 million families for a
year.''
I checked with the Census. That is just about exactly the
growth in population in California over the next 10 years
projected, at least by the Census. So if we were able to do all
of the things that are called for here, we would be--I do not
want to say treading water, that would be the wrong metaphor,
but we certainly would not be gaining on the problem.
And while the chairman was kind enough to note a parochial
interest that I have in this project from the standpoint of the
citizens of Arizona, I can assure you that my primary interest
here is in helping you, Senator Feinstein.
I do not think that we have enough of a concern in Arizona
over future California water use that Arizona has to be
concerned about theft of our water. We need to help with this
program, because it is a good idea in and of itself.
But I do want to make the point that there is going to have
to be a water development and storage component here that is
robust enough to, not just keep up with population increases,
but hopefully meet some of the needs that have been identified
in the past.
And given the fact that some of these estimates are
probably fairly rosy, and that only one-sixth of the supply is
newly generated water storage, I pose the question of whether
you think there are other potential water development aspects
of this that could be brought forth and, in particular, whether
there are other potential sources of water development in the
northern part of California.
Secretary Nichols. Senator Kyl, I think I understand your
question and, if I may, the chart that you are referring to and
the comment, only refers to Federal- and State-sponsored
storage projects. It does not refer to locally developed or
regionally developed water district initiated water supply,
water storage projects that are going on around the State right
now.
As a result of a number of factors, including increasing
interests in water transfers within the State, as well as a
great deal of interest in the southern part of the State in
developing independent supplies, we see cities and water
districts and irrigation districts all investing in a number of
new projects that are designed to improve the overall supply
situation, including water reuse and water conservation
programs, as well as ground water management, conjunctive use
and so forth.
So we really do not mean to suggest that this is everything
that is going on in the State to try to meet what we know are
going to be some pretty demanding water needs in the future.
Senator Kyl. If there is any information you could supply
to the subcommittee that would help to edify us on that, it
would be appreciated.
Secretary Nichols. We would be happy to do that.
Senator Feinstein. I think, too, we talked about the first
tranche, the first three storage projects. Now, there is one
that is more controversial than the first three and that is the
Sites project. But that has a potential storage of 1,900,000
acre feet, with the environmental review completion date of
August 2004.
And then there are a whole series of others as well. So
back in that same book, there are other storage projects--I
think the point that you make that is such a good point is
there is no way California can meet its additional water needs
in the future without storage.
Senator Kyl. Yes. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. No way.
Senator Kyl. Yes. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. You are very welcome.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I appreciate
these hearings today. And I guess I have a little institutional
knowledge in this situation, as we went through the wars of
1992 in the California Water Settlement in the Central Valley
Project. And every time I hear San Joaquin and Sacramento River
and Friant and Trinity, a lot of those sayings bring back old
memories.
Madam Secretary Norton, I have some reservations. I think
this legislation needs authorization. And I am very supportive
of what the Senator from California is doing. But given the
backlog of already authorized and unconstructed water projects
that we have in this country now and looking at the bottom
line, the cost of this one, are we going to have enough money
to complete all these projects and say, does California have to
get in line with the rest of us who have projects that have
been authorized and have not been funded?
Secretary Norton. Well, obviously there are intense
pressures on the limited budget that we have. And we are
working to stretch that as much as we can to meet the various
needs, but it is correct that the projects do compete against
each other, so we need to work with you all on trying to
prioritize.
Senator Burns. Well, I am in the authorization of this
thing, because I feel a little bit of a relationship with the
people who were promised water because they were having water
taken away from them on the west side. And that was in 1992.
And nothing has been done to deliver to those folks the water
that they were promised after this whole process was completed.
I have good friends that are out there on the west end, in
the San Joaquin and those valleys and that is what I am
concerned with here, is that I am not so much concerned with
the Bay and the Delta, as I am with production agriculture and
the base and the promises that were made to the agricultural
producers of that area. So I am going to be very supportive of
what Senator Feinstein is doing.
I have no other questions. I just want to be a part of this
discussion as it moves along, because there are some very
familiar names on this witness list, even for today.
I did not like the settlement before. I did not like the
1992 settlement. In fact, I never did sign the conference
report, because I felt like the approach was just wrong, and
they were making promises that I knew that they could not
fulfill, and they did not fulfill and maybe we have the
opportunity to do that now.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, if you would?
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
apologize for my delay, and I appreciate your chairing this
hearing.
The full Appropriations Committee has been meeting on two
appropriations bills, and I have been over in the Capitol
dealing with that. And I asked if Senator Feinstein would be
willing to chair this hearing.
We appreciate the testimony of Secretary Norton and
Secretary Nichols. Welcome. And I understand that your
testimony has been positive and contributes a great deal to
this committee.
I will put a statement in the record for this hearing. But
I understand how important this issue is. I understand that the
opportunity for us to talk about S. 976, which Senator
Feinstein has authored to authorize the California Bay-Delta
program is a very important piece of legislation for California
and the region.
I am really pleased to be able to have this hearing and
have the voices be able to express their interests. And I look
forward to working with Senator Feinstein as we proceed with
this authorization bill.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, U.S. Senator
From North Dakota
Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome Secretary Norton, Secretary
Nichols from California, Senator Boxer, Congressman Miller, and
Congresswoman Tauscher here today to our Subcommittee. I am pleased
that the importance of the CALFED program is recognized since the
Secretary, Members, and other top officials are with us.
Today, the Water and Power Subcommittee will receive testimony on
S. 976, the ``California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality
Enhancement Act of 2001,'' introduced by Senator Feinstein to authorize
the California Bay-Delta Program, as well as to provide for other
activities relating to ecosystem enhancement and water supply.
I understand from Senator Feinstein that this legislation is of the
highest importance to the State of California in meeting future water
needs for urban areas as well as for agricultural water use. I also
understand that the program has yielded important ecosystem
improvements and will continue to do so in the future. As a Senator
from a state where water supply, water quality, and agriculture are
significant issues, I appreciate the paramount importance of this
subject.
For that reason, I am pleased to learn more about this legislation
from our witnesses today.
The long-term Bay-Delta Program, which this bill would authorize,
is the result of efforts by the federal government working in
partnership with the State of California. It also represents the hard
work of others--urban water agencies; agricultural water users; the
environmental community; and cities. The program is intended to address
ecosystem restoration; provide a more reliable supply of water for all
water users; and improve water quality. Greater certainty with respect
to water management in California and the West is critical, because
water is such a critical resource for all of us.
CALFED authorization has expired. Last year, the State of
California and the federal government reached a landmark agreement on
the best way to proceed to meet the State's water needs. Senator
Feinstein believes that her legislation, S. 976, would ensure that the
federal government would adhere to this agreement. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses and hope we can get to the bottom of this
contentious, but important, issue.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank you very much, both Madam Secretaries. I
appreciate it. Thank you so much.
And we will go to the next panel, which is Patrick Wright,
director of CALFED from Sacramento; Richard Moss, the general
manager of Friant Water Users; Stephen Hall, the executive
director of the Association of California Water Agencies; Grant
Davis, executive director of the Bay Institute at San Rafael;
and Phillip Pace, chairman of the board of the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California; Stuart Somach, partner
of Somach, Simmons and Dunn, who represents many of the water
contractors--I do not know quite who he is representing today,
but we will find out--and James Cunneen, president and CEO of
the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce.
Welcome, gentlemen. Why we do not begin with you, Mr.
Wright, as the executive director of CALFED? Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, CALFED,
BAY-DELTA PROGRAM, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Senator. And I thank all of you for
coming all the way out here from California. I want to join our
previous speakers in applauding your leadership in bringing us
out here and introducing a bill to try to bring us together and
move these reauthorization bills forward.
As you know, it has been just about a year since Secretary
Babbitt and Governor Davis announced the CALFED Bay-Delta plan,
the largest and most comprehensive water management plan in the
Nation.
As you know, it calls for one of the Nation's most
ambitious ecosystem restoration programs and the biggest and
largest investment in water infrastructure in over 40 years in
the State.
And we are off to a fast start. In just the program's first
year, we have managed to allocate over $300 million up and down
the State for water quality and water supply projects, over
$150 million for ecosystem restoration programs.
We have signed local agreements on both the Sites Reservoir
project and the Los Vaqueros expansion projects to get those
moving, with local support through a partnership with the
agencies; 16 agreements with local communities to study ground
water storage programs, which in the long run may end up being
just as significant. Our staff estimates that just the projects
that we approved and funded as pilots for further study have
the potential for providing up to 300,000 acre feet in new
yield or new delivery capability, so we think both surface and
ground water storage projects are vital to make progress in
meeting our long-term water needs.
We also are mindful of the fact that it was very dry this
year, and we have got to be very prepared in case next year is
dry as well. So the Department of Water Resources working with
the other agencies very quickly developed a drought contingency
plan and managed in a very short time frame to facilitate the
transfer of nearly 300,000 acre feet of water this year to
areas that were facing the most severe shortages.
We also launched an innovative environmental water account
to provide more water for fish in ways that would not affect
project allocations. And we also announced grant programs for
local communities to meet their own water quality, watershed,
ground water management needs, again, throughout the Bay-Delta
watershed.
And then finally, we hired a chief scientist to make sure
that we have strong independent scientific review of all of our
major program elements. We know that is going to be a very key
element in building confidence and trust in this program.
As you know, everybody has got a horror story about
California water, but we know we are not going to be effective
unless folks have confidence in the scientific review process
that we apply to all of our projects, both the ecosystem
projects, as well as the water management projects.
Of course, all of this extraordinary progress this first
year was made possible both because we previously had a Federal
authorization to give us a down payment on the program, and
because recently the voters of California saw the wisdom with
your leadership and others in passing a bond act that gave us
nearly $500 million last year, another $500 million this year,
together with a substantial contribution from Governor Davis,
as part of the general fund to get us going.
But, of course, that is not going to be enough. We are
going to continue to need strong Federal leadership and support
to keep us on track and on time.
Without these funds, we are going to have a tough time
meeting the very aggressive time frames and commitments in the
plan. I am particularly concerned about maintaining balance in
the program, because the water bond, as wonderful as it was,
does not provide money for all elements of the program.
So we clearly need Federal money for those areas of the
program that are not as well covered by the water bond,
including the storage and conveyance projects that are part of
the CDP that are largely dependent upon Federal funding. So we
are definitely looking for your leadership and help in making
sure that we get those projects back on track.
As we head into our second year then, our highest priority
will continue to be to try to meet those aggressive time frames
and commitments that are in the plan, including the west side
target that has been the source of discussion throughout this
week and in the bills.
We know that that commitment is one that we have got to be
very serious about. We are going to move even more aggressively
with our State and Federal partners back in Sacramento to
increase your confidence that we are serious about meeting that
ROD commitment.
I have worked on this program, as you know, since its
inception and even before that. And there is probably on
average an article a month in the newspaper about how this
program is in limbo or is in danger of collapse.
But we are still here. We are now making great progress,
because the stakeholders realized this is the only game in
town. A balanced comprehensive plan is the only way to continue
to make progress and a State/Federal partnership is the only
way to continue to make progress.
So again we look forward to your leadership in taking us to
the next level, as we move towards a reauthorization bill that
we can all support. Thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Wright, Director, CALFED, Bay-Delta
Program, Sacramento, CA
Thank you for inviting me to testify in support of federal
authorization and funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I applaud
the leadership of Senator Feinstein in introducing a bill to support
the program, and I look forward to working with the Congress, the state
and federal administrations, and stakeholder groups in California as
the reauthorization bills move forward.
It has been just over a year since the Governor and the Secretary
of Interior announced the CALFED Plan--the largest and most
comprehensive water management plan in the nation. The Plan is a
balanced, comprehensive approach to reduce conflicts over our limited
supplies, and to address the state's long-term water needs. It calls
for one of the nation's largest ecosystem restoration programs, and
provides specific deadlines for developing over 6 million acre-feet of
new water storage projects the biggest investment in the state's water
infrastructure in 40 years.
FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
After five years of planning and public input, the Program is now
delivering on its promise. In the Program's first year, the CALFED
agencies have:
Allocated over $300 million from state and federal funds for
water supply and water quality projects throughout the state;
Allocated over $150 million for ecosystem restoration
programs to protect and restore our depleted fisheries;
Signed agreements with local partners to plan for major
surface storage projects in the Bay Area and Sacramento Valley,
and sixteen agreements with local agencies to study groundwater
storage programs;
Developed a drought contingency plan, and made available
300,000 acre this year to areas facing water shortages;
Launched an innovative Environmental Water Account to set
aside water for fish without reducing allocations to farms and
cities.
Developed grant programs for local agencies to address
drinking water, water conservation, groundwater management, and
watershed protection projects throughout the state;
Hired a Chief Scientist and launched an unprecedented effort
to apply independent scientific review to all major elements of
the Program.
FUNDING NEEDS
This extraordinary progress was made possible because California
voters saw the wisdom of investing in California's water future through
the passage of Propositions 204 and 13 in 1996 and 2000, respectively.
Last year, the State allocated over $500 million to the Program, and
another $500 million is likely to be available next year.
But the Program also needs significant federal funding to meet our
objectives and maintain a strong state-federal partnership. The CALFED
Plan calls for a $3 billion commitment from the federal government to
match the state and local shares during the first seven-year stage of
the Program. Without these funds, many key elements of the Plan will be
significantly delayed or canceled. For the most part, we are on track
and on time. But because of limited federal funds, we are falling
behind on our schedules for expansion of Shasta Reservoir and other
projects that depend primarily on federal funding.
Has the Program ended all water conflicts in the state? No. As long
as there are competing needs for limited water supplies, conflicts are
inevitable. But investments in the Plan will help us better manage
these conflicts. For example, through development of the Environmental
Water Account this year, additional water was allocated to endangered
fish without affecting other uses, and through our transfers program,
300,000 acre feet was delivered to areas facing water shortages.
Through these and other investments in the storage, conveyance, water
use efficiency, and ecosystem restoration projects described in the
CALFED Plan, we can develop the flexibility and reliability necessary
to meet the state's long-term water needs.
SECOND YEAR PRIORITIES
As we head into our second year, our top priorities include:
First, continuing to meet the aggressive milestones and commitments
in the plan. With federal support and funding, we can stay on time and
track and maintain a balanced program.
Second, strengthening our science program. We intend to hire
additional staff and convene expert panels to improve the scientific
basis of agency decisions, and to ensure that only the highest quality
projects are funded.
Third and most important, strengthening our partnerships with local
and regional communities. The program will be successful only if it
supports and builds upon collaborative efforts to address water issues
at the local or regional level. Just last month, for example, we
allocated $55 million to 178 groundwater management, watershed, and
water use efficiency projects throughout the state. None of these funds
are for state or federal agencies; they are all going to local
communities to solve their most pressing water needs.
With federal support and funding, the CALFED Program can continue
to work with local partners in building the infrastructure necessary to
provide high quality, reliability supplies for cities, farms, and the
environment.
Thank you again for hearing my testimony.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Moss, representing the Friant Water Users. I guess
1,500 individual--or is it more than that?
Mr. Moss. 15,000, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Moss. 15,000 small family farmers with an average farm
size of approximately 100 acres.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MOSS, GENERAL MANAGER, FRIANT WATER
USERS AUTHORITY, LINDSAY, CA
Mr. Moss. I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear
here today, Ms. Feinstein, Chairman Dorgan and the rest of the
members of the committee.
I am Richard Moss, general manager of Friant Water Users.
We have 25 member water agencies in our organization. We are
part of the Friant division of the Central Valley Project;
again, 1 million acres on the east side of the southern San
Joaquin Valley, some of the world's most productive farmland
generating in excess of $4 billion a year in agricultural
production of high-value crops.
The Friant Division gets its water out of the San Joaquin
River tributary to the Bay-Delta from Friant Dam and Millerton
Reservoir, northeast of Fresno.
We are also indirectly dependent upon Delta exports, in
that the Friant Division was put together back in the 1940's
with an agreement with the people known as the Exchange
Contractors, the original water right holders on the San
Joaquin River.
We get to divert their water rights at Friant Dam, in
exchange for providing a substitute supply that is generated
out of Shasta Reservoir in northern California and pumped and
delivered out of the Tracy Pumps, the CVP pumps in the Delta.
Thus we have really two reasons to have a significant
interest in the success of CALFED, both as a direct diverter,
and as well as a significant export interest.
California, as you have noted, Senator, often is at a
crossroads in terms of its water future. California now has a
chronic water shortage. We really are on the verge of a water
crisis.
This chronic water shortage is especially bad in the San
Joaquin Valley, where the majority of the impacts of regulatory
water reallocation have focused. The region was already water
short to begin with, which manifests itself in the form of
ground water overdraft to the tune of almost 1 million acre
feet a year.
We are also faced with the prospect of trying to return a
salmon run, a salmon fishery to the upper San Joaquin River
below Friant Dam, where one has not existed for 50 years.
We are studying actually how to do this in cooperation with
the environmental community in a joint venture of how to
restore a naturally reproducing fishery and to do so in a way
that keeps our water users whole from a water supply and cost
standpoint.
Our studies will be completed in a number of months from
now, but we do know one result, and that is: The restoration
program will be very, very expensive.
The Friant Water Users Authority is in support of S. 976,
the California Ecosystem Water Supply, Water Quality
Enhancement Act. The congressional authorization and funding of
the CALFED program is vitally important.
In S. 976 there is a real and needed commitment to
environmental restoration and enhancement. There is a real and
needed commitment to new infrastructure, including new surface
storage reservoirs.
There is a real and needed commitment to not only improving
the hub of California's water system, the Bay-Delta, but also
to go beyond the Bay-Delta and support water and environmental
projects that were not fully contemplated as part of the CALFED
plan.
This last point is of great value to Friant in that we are
concerned that the CALFED plan has not fully contemplated Upper
San Joaquin River restoration. And thus we take great solace in
the legislation in that it provides the ability to get projects
and programs that were not--that are not--get them funded that
were not prescribed as part of the original CALFED plan.
We are also supportive of the clear desire in the
legislation to accelerate the process of putting new
infrastructure in place. We cannot afford decades of studies
before we make meaningful improvements in our infrastructure.
Unfortunately, ending in a negative note, we remain very
concerned about the assurances to be provided one group of
water users in California by the bill.
We believe it clearly is the intent of the CALFED program
to provide real improvements to those water users, and we
support that intent. Where we get cross-wise is when you cross
that line--and we have heard it today--of ``Does an
improvement--is an improvement a goal, an objective, or is it a
federally legislated mandate?''
We must take great care in exercising in what we are doing
here to make sure we do not create legal hooks for those water
agencies who have a history of litigating early and often and
in order to try to remedy their lack of water right priority.
We have seen your most recent proposed amendments to the
bill, and we are very concerned that it moves in the wrong
direction in terms of crossing that line and----
Senator Feinstein. Let me--you are saying on the assurance
language----
Mr. Moss. Yes. We are concerned that it is moving to more
of a mandate as compared to less of one.
Senator Feinstein. ``Pursuant to the ROD'' or ``subject to
the ROD,'' is it that phrase?
Mr. Moss. It is more than that. It is more than that,
Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Well, could you tell us exactly what it
is?
Mr. Moss. Well, we believe that the language, in fact, does
create a Federal mandate to provide a certain level of water
supply to those water users. So it is more than just the
``pursuant'' language. We would have problems with the language
beyond just the initial part of that sentence.
Senator Feinstein. For me and my colleagues, we have two
sides of the valley. And this is where there is the rub.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. The Friant users, 15,000 smaller farmers
on the east side of the valley and the west side of the valley,
which are larger agri-business type farms, with different water
rights. And it is extraordinarily difficult to remedy this.
Mr. Moss. It is, Senator. I guess I could offer that the
level of concern is, I think, increasing in your proximity to
the west side.
If you are the only other CVP contractor south of the
Delta, having gone through no less than 10 years of litigation
on very similar issues of uncertainty over language and the
law, and most recently a State application to take better than
half of our water away, we are very concerned about how this
legislation might provide that legal hook.
And given that we have language now, potentially on both
the House and Senate side, it really causes us to reassess our
strategy in dealing with this issue. And I am not sure what my
board will do. I will be talking to them next week about how we
will go forward with both of these bills, both on the Senate
and House side.
Senator Feinstein. Well, do not rush off. Let us talk. I
mean, we will find a way to solve this.
Mr. Moss. I appreciate that very much, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Moss. And thank you all for hearing my testimony and
inviting me here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard M. Moss, General Manager, Friant Water
Users Authority, Lindsay, CA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I very much appreciate
being given the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee to
provide support for and comment on S. 976, the California Ecosystem,
Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 and comment on
the CalFed Program. I am testifying today as the General Manager of the
Friant Water Users Authority and as a small citrus grower in the Friant
Division service area.
We now have a much better understanding of the blueprint for the
CalFed actions anticipated over the next several years. Negotiations
between state and federal administrations culminated last year in an
agreement on a CalFed plan, supported by a record of decision and
further agreement on how to implement that plan. We are now poised to
pick up where we left off last fall in getting the needed federal
authorization to begin actual implementation of this plan. I intend to
update you herein with the most current views of the Friant Water Users
Authority on the CalFed Program and how it should authorized. In that
regard, I have attached as Exhibit A to my testimony the policy
document adopted by the Friant Water Users Authority Board of Directors
that provides these views in summary policy form.
INTRODUCTION
I am Richard M. Moss, the General Manager of the Friant Water Users
Authority. The Friant Water Users Authority is a joint powers authority
formed under state law comprised of 25 member agencies that all get
water from the Friant Division of the CVP.
The Friant Division service area is comprised of approximately 1
million acres of the world's richest farmland. It ranges from the
southern part of Merced County, all the way to the Grapevine in Kern
County. The majority of the service area is in Madera, Fresno, Tulare
and Kern counties. This one-million-acre area annually produces about
$4 billion in gross agricultural production. We grow a tremendous
variety of crops. The majority of the area is dedicated to permanent
plantings of grapes, nuts, tree fruit and citrus. We also have a
significant amount of row and field crops, as well as leading the
nation in dairy production. This area is truly unique in its quality of
agriculture and in its ability to produce all of this on small family
farms that average approximately 100 acres in size. The area is also
renowned for its highly efficient use of irrigation water, having been
a ``hot bed'' for the development of drip and low volume irrigation
technology. We can boast of some of the highest irrigation efficiencies
found anywhere in the world.
The Friant Division service area is comprised of approximately 1
million acres of the world's richest farmland. It ranges from the
southern part of Merced County, all the way to the Grapevine in Kern
County. The majority of the service area is in Madera, Fresno, Tulare
and Kern counties. This one-million-acre area annually produces about
$4 billion in gross agricultural production. We grow a tremendous
variety of crops. The majority of the area is dedicated to permanent
plantings of grapes, nuts, tree fruit and citrus. We also have a
significant amount of row and field crops, as well as leading the
nation in dairy production. This area is truly unique in its quality of
agriculture and in its ability to produce all of this on small family
farms that average approximately 100 acres in size. The area is also
renowned for its highly efficient use of irrigation water, having been
a ``hot bed'' for the development of drip and low volume irrigation
technology. We can boast of some of the highest irrigation efficiencies
found anywhere in the world.
The Friant Division of the CVP consists of Friant Dam and Millerton
Lake on the San Joaquin River northeast of Fresno, the 152-mile Friant-
Kern Canal that runs south all the way to Bakersfield and the 36-mile
Madera Canal that runs north to the Chowchilla River. The Friant
Division of the CVP annually delivers approximately 1.5 million acre-
feet of water. This water supply is principally used as a supplemental
water supply, providing only 1.5 acre-feet per acre on average.
However, there are some parts of the service area that rely totally on
the Friant Division water as their sole source of supply. The area is
blessed with good quality groundwater aquifers. Groundwater is the firm
source of supply for the majority of the service area. The Friant
Division is unique in the west in that it employs a two-class system of
water deliveries. The Class 1 water is the first water to develop
behind Friant Dam and is delivered to those parts of the service area
that have limited or no access to groundwater supplies. The Class 2
water develops only after the Class 1 demands have been met and is
delivered to those parts of the service area that can rely on
groundwater. Class 2 water is typically used to replenish the
groundwater through ``in-lieu'' recharge--providing growers with
surface water in-lieu of using their wells, and through direct
recharge--percolating water in recharge basins, natural water ways and
unlined canals into the underground aquifers. The Friant Division has
been in service for 50 years and has been successful in arresting the
serious condition of groundwater overdraft that existed prior to the
project. It should be noted, however, that a condition of critical
groundwater overdraft still exists in parts of the service area and in
neighboring areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley.
The majority of the water rights to the San Joaquin River allowing
for the diversion of water at Friant Dam are based on purchase and
exchange agreements with the individuals and entities that held rights
on the San Joaquin River at the time the Friant Division was developed.
The single largest of these agreements requires annual delivery of
840,000 acre-feet of water to the central San Joaquin Valley near
Mendota (commonly referred to as the Exchange Contract). Thus, the
Friant Division is dependent upon other features of the CVP, including
Shasta Dam, the Tracy Pumping Plant and the Delta-Mendota Canal, to
facilitate this required exchange. It is important to note that if for
some reason the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is unable to meet the
demands of the Exchange Contract out of Delta export supplies, the
Exchange Contract provides for the release of water from Friant Dam to
meet Exchange Contractor needs.
CALIFORNIA'S WATER CRISIS
There are a number of factors that have led to the challenges, more
accurately the crisis, we are facing in terms of a chronic water
shortage for the state and in particularly for the San Joaquin Valley
as a region.
The state population growth is an underlying force that continues
to drive the need for developing additional water supplies. Yet, we
have placed very few new water projects on line over the past twenty
years. This lack of new water supply infrastructure to meet growing
population needs means that we have had to live off of the ``extra''
capacity of the system that our forefathers designed and built 30, 40
or 50 years ago. That extra capacity is gone. There is now very limited
ability to weather a one or two year drought, much less a drought
comparable to even the most recent drought of the late 1980's and early
1990's.
Further straining the system's capacity and flexibility are the
needs associated with the development of a new environmental ethic in
the state and the nation that has sought to address a perceived lack of
consideration given to the environment with the construction of much of
our water supply system. I remember vividly discussing with my Central
Valley Project manager counterparts how we were going to share the
remaining unallocated yield of the CVP of some 1.2 million acre-feet as
short a time ago as in 1989. Since that time, we have had the passage
and implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and
other regulatory actions to protect and enhance the environment that
have resulted in less and less water being available for human uses,
including agricultural production. A great deal of this lessening water
supply impact has come to rest on the San Joaquin Valley as a region.
Water supplies that were historically very dependable are now very
unreliable. The region suffers from a well-documented groundwater
overdraft that has been significantly worsened as a result of decreased
availability of surface water supplies.
The reliability of Friant Division water supplies is currently at
risk as a result of at least two major actions or activities. In the
first, litigation brought in 1988 by a number of environmental and
fishing organizations seeks to return sufficient flow to the upper
mainstem of the San Joaquin River for the restoration of a salmon
fishery. Estimates of the need for additional water to restore this
fishery range from 150,000 acre-feet to some 600,000 acre-feet per year
on the average. If Friant water users were ordered by the courts to
release existing supplies for this purpose, it obviously would have a
major impact on the availability of water to Friant Division water
users unless additional water supplies were developed to meet this
need. It is important to note that a stay to this litigation was
developed by the parties to the action in November of 1999 that allowed
the parties a limited period of time to explore ways of restoring flow
and natural processes to the upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River
which would provide for the restoration of a fishery while not
adversely impacting the available water supply or cost of water to
Friant water users. The development of a plan of restoration has been
progressing for a year, with study results expected to be available at
the end of this year or early next year.
The second risk to Friant Division water supplies lies within the
fact that the region is now chronically water short. Generally, those
areas of the San Joaquin Valley that were the last to develop their
land and their rights to water are the first to be shorted when the
inevitable droughts occur. In particular, with the loss of water supply
reliability of waters being exported out of the Sacramento/San Joaquin
River Delta, some of the water users served by the Delta export pumps
apparently feel compelled to attack the water rights and water supplies
of their neighbors within the region. These attacks have taken the form
of several legal challenges to CVP operations or other legal
maneuvering aimed at reallocating the very limited water supplies that
exist for the balance of the region. It is important to note that not
everyone suffering from the water supply cutbacks has taken this
aggressive approach. Many, such as the Kern County Water Agency and
others, look to a more cooperative approach to dealing with their water
shortages; relying upon creativity and partnerships as compared to
litigation and divisiveness. The legal challenges and attacks on our
continued beneficial use of Friant Division water supplies have
consistently been defeated. However, the cost of defending these claims
has been extraordinary, both monetarily and in terms of the uncertainty
and acrimony created.
There also exists a threat to the continued use of the available
water supplies for our agricultural economy that are driven by our own
regional growth. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the fastest growing
regions in the state. Balancing urban area growth with maintenance of
the most productive agricultural region in the world presents constant
challenges. Keeping prime farmland in production next to burgeoning
cities is becoming more and more difficult. Moving growth to non-
irrigated lands, like the San Joaquin Valley's foothills, can only be
accomplished if the new development brings a water supply with it.
Given the region's already chronically water short condition, where
will this water supply come from unless new supplies are developed?
ACTIONS THAT FRIANT WATER USERS HAVE TAKEN TO IMPROVE OUR
WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Friant water users believe strongly in joining with others to
create mutually beneficial partnerships that address our problems and
the problems of others.
If you were to have asked what the greatest threat to Friant
Division water supplies was four years ago, I would have said it was
the potential of an adverse outcome in the effort to allocate the
responsibility for meeting Bay/Delta water quality standards. The stage
was set for a massive fight before the California State Water Resources
Control Board between the major water users on the San Joaquin River
upstream of the point where it enters the Bay/Delta, including entities
such as Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District,
Merced Irrigation District, the City and County of San Francisco, Delta
Export interests, Friant water users and others. Coming out of the1994
Bay/Delta Accord, the California State Water Resources Control Board
was charged with allocating the responsibility for meeting the flow and
water quality standards to the water right holders for waters tributary
to the Bay/Delta.
On the San Joaquin River, the responsibility for meeting the new
standards was negotiated and agreed to by the major water right holders
on the river. This agreement is known as the San Joaquin River
Agreement and was formally adopted by the State Board in December 1999.
The Friant Water Users Authority, on behalf of the Friant Division
districts, was a major contributor to the development of this
agreement. This agreement provides for a twelve-year timeframe to test
theories of river flow augmentation combined with export pumping
regimes and operation of a barrier at the head of the Old River
Channel, designed to provide the greatest benefit, in terms of
survival, for fall run Chinook salmon. The technical aspects of the San
Joaquin River Agreement are known as the Vernalis Adaptive Management
Plan or ``VAMP.'' In essence, twelve years have been provided for the
users of waters from the San Joaquin River (including Friant water
users) to develop a long-term sustainable plan for the protection of
San Joaquin River fisheries based upon sound scientific evidence that
will be generated from the VAMP analysis. This is considered by
virtually everyone in the California water community to be a victory
for compromise over conflict. These once adverse interests now meet
several times a year to adaptively manage the experimental program and
to optimize the value of the San Joaquin River Agreement to the parties
and to the environment. It is certainty that, had the San Joaquin River
interests chosen to fight rather than pursue creative solutions, we
would all be either still before the State Board or in court rather
than getting about the business of addressing water quality needs in
the Delta.
The previously mentioned stay in the litigation to restore a salmon
fishery to the upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River should also be
considered a valuable partnership activity on the behalf of Friant
water users to address an issue of tremendous concern. While there is a
considerable way to go to completion of a plan for restoration that
keeps Friant Division water users whole from a water supply and cost
standpoint, I have every belief that this effort will be a success. Ten
years of litigation have led to this consensus-based attempt to find
resolution to some otherwise intractable issues. The litigation has the
potential to go on for at least another ten years. Even if the
plaintiffs were successful, there would be no measurable improvement in
the environmental condition of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam
for a long, long time. Environmental restoration is now being
accomplished and, importantly, the economy of the east side of the San
Joaquin Valley is being maintained.
Lastly, let me mention the fledgling cooperative efforts between
the Friant Water Users Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (``MWD'') to find mutually beneficial ways to
improve water management. Within the past year, Friant interests and
MWD representatives began what we hope will be a productive partnership
to assist MWD to significantly improve the water quality to its
Southern California water users while at the same time improving the
capabilities of Friant Division water districts to manage available and
new water supplies to meet existing needs, including the need to
develop water supplies for San Joaquin River restoration. This new
partnership has great potential to provide significant benefits to the
San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California. This partnership, when
combined with the partnering efforts involved with San Joaquin River
restoration, clearly has the potential to lead to actions that can
benefit virtually the entire state.
S. 976, THE CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY
ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001
As I know you are aware, the Friant Water Users Authority is
supportive of S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water
Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 that was introduced by Senator
Feinstein. Congressional authorization of the CalFed program and a real
federal commitment to addressing California's water needs are vitally
important, and S. 976 is therefore an important and needed bill. We
very much appreciate the leadership of Senator Feinstein and this
Committee in developing this legislation. We have sought to have it
strengthened in a couple of regards in order to be more supportive of
the actions and programs we have underway and actions and programs we
foresee in the future, including those just previously mentioned.
As noted earlier, in order to address a significant threat to the
Friant Division's water security, we are developing and implementing a
program of restoration for the upper mainstem of the San Joaquin River
below Friant Dam. Congress clearly recognized the environmental
tradeoffs it was making when it authorized the construction of the
Friant Division of the CVP back in 1939. We expect Congress and the
federal government to have a major role in the restoration of the river
and return of a fishery. Our progress on the studies and development of
a plan for restoration are ``out of synch'' from a timing perspective
with the immediately needed authorization of the CalFed Program. We
know the funding needs for the San Joaquin River restoration program
will be significant and we are concerned that they have not been
adequately considered in the CalFed Framework Agreement and the
subsequent record of decision.
However, we are pleased to see provisions contemplated in the
California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of
2001 that, with some additional clarification, could well address our
concerns. The San Joaquin River is specifically noted for restoration
in Section 4. Bay-Delta Program. As well a study of increased San
Joaquin River storage is proposed. Additionally, Section 5. Water
Supply Program would appear to allow projects for water supply
development, water quality improvements and environmental enhancement
to qualify for federal grant funding that may not be addressed or fully
addressed in the CalFed Bay-Delta Program. We believe that with some
assurance that our multi-benefit programs for environmental
restoration, water supply improvement and water quality improvement can
qualify under these sections, that we can compete effectively for such
monies in the future to help meet our local water supply and river
restoration needs.
We would also like to see clarification in the legislation that the
stated grant funding limits only limit the federal funding to be
provided under the legislation and not the total federal funding that
may be brought to bear on a project. This is especially important when
considering the use of existing funding sources such as the CVPIA
Restoration Fund where there is a clear overlap of purpose and the
funding source is primarily provided by water and power users of the
CVP, yet its use may be inadvertently limited on a project because of
the federal funding caps contemplated in this bill.
Certainly, creating a well funded, balanced and scientifically
based program of environmental restoration of the Bay/Delta and its
tributaries will be consistent with and supportive of our needed San
Joaquin River restoration effort. Even if we are successful in
returning the conditions favorable to an anadromous fishery below
Friant Dam, the conditions all of the way down the river, through the
Delta, through the Bay and to the ocean must also be conducive to
successful salmon smolt out-migration and the return of the adults. In
this regard, it is easy to understand why we believe CalFed must be
authorized and the environmental restoration program get underway
quickly in order for Friant water users to ultimately obtain their
needed water supply security.
New water supply infrastructure, including the new storage
contemplated in the record of decision, must be supported and the
regulatory hurdles leading to construction minimized. This does not
mean abandoning existing law and regulation and running the risk of
making environmental or economic mistakes. However, a plan of water
supply development and water quality improvements that takes too long
to come to fruition will only create new mistrust of the process and
new reasons for individual interests to think and act only for
themselves. Being able to move effectively and efficiently in making
the necessary determinations to effect water system improvements is
essential.
Finally, we have experienced first-hand the cost and anguish of
defending our water rights and water supplies from those who would
interpret existing law to an end never intended by the legislature. We
remain concerned about any current or future effort to weaken our
ability to meet the needs of our service area, including the needs of
the San Joaquin River, by those desperate for additional water supplies
within the region. In that regard, we see great potential for the
inadvertent upset of existing water rights and operational priorities
for the CVP with otherwise well-intentioned law to provide assurances
of a water supply where, truly, no assurance can be found. Clearly, an
assurance to some has the potential to become a huge liability to
others and must be avoided unless all interests are in agreement and
the source of the assurance is clear.
In this regard, as I know you are aware, the Friant Water Users
Authority has been and remains concerned about language in this bill
that has the potential to be interpreted as providing a certain water
supply for south-of-Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water
contractors at the expense of other stakeholders.
The Friant Water Users Authority believes that it clearly is the
intent of the CalFed record of decision to provide this assurance as an
achievable objective within the context of other goals established as
part of the CalFed Program. As such, the endorsement of the CalFed
record of decision by Congress in its authorization of the CalFed
Program is all that should be needed to provide federal agencies the
directive to meet this objective. Mandating achievement of this
objective, or even separately highlighting it, in the CalFed
authorization is unnecessary and runs the risk of creating a legal
nexus and confusion about Congressional intent on this most important
issue. The obvious downside is creating legal fodder for those who have
a history of using any claimed lack of clarity in federal law or
contracts to bootstrap themselves to an improved water supply position
at the expense of others. I, as well as others, have endeavored for the
past several weeks to develop language changes that would provide the
clarity needed to protect the universe of interests that could be
affected by such language. I am concerned that such language changes
are not achievable.
CLOSING
In closing, let me extend my appreciation for the invitation to
appear before the Committee today. The Friant Water Users Authority
very much appreciates your interest in providing the San Joaquin Valley
and all of California a safe and reliable water supply and a restored
environment. It is difficult to limit my comments to just those noted
above. I would encourage the Committee to review the policy statement
of the Friant Water Users Authority on CalFed attached as Exhibit A to
better understand why we support S. 976, the California Ecosystem,
Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001 and believe it
clearly provides a vehicle for moving forward on these most important
issues.
We look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you.
Exhibit A
FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY
Policy Principles Regarding CalFed
Recitals--In consideration of the policy principles regarding
CalFed, the Board of Directors of the Friant Water Users Authority
finds the following things to be true and correct:
1. The Friant Water Users Authority was created to protect the
water and water rights of its member agencies and to assist in
maintaining an adequate, reliable and affordable water supply for the
water users served by its member agencies;
2. The Friant Division of the Central Valley Project is predicated
upon a program of exchange of water between the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation and the entities and agencies known as the Exchange
Contractors, memorialized as the Exchange Contract revised and dated
December 6, 1967. Thus, the Friant Division is indirectly dependent
upon exports of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation from the Sacramento/San
Joaquin River Delta;
3. A number of Friant Water Users Authority member agencies have
contracts for delivery of water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
taken directly from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta;
4. The region served by the member agencies of the Friant Water
Users Authority is currently water short. This shortage manifests
itself in the form of groundwater overdraft;
5. The Friant Water Users Authority is currently engaged in a
program of study and pilot project implementation resulting from
litigation known as NRDC vs. Patterson which seeks to restore, on a
mutually acceptable basis, the environmental values of the San Joaquin
River downstream from Friant Dam while not adversely impacting the
overall sufficiency, reliability and costs of water to the Friant
Division of the Central Valley Project, more particularly described in
the Mutual Goals Statement dated June 3, 1999;
6. The Friant Water Users Authority is signatory and supports the
San Joaquin River Agreement and the principles of cooperation and sound
water management it represents;
7. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act was passed into law
in 1992. It made sweeping changes to the amount of water available from
the Central Valley Project, the cost of water available from the
Central Valley Project, the priorities for Central Valley Project
deliveries and the terms of contracting for water with the federal
government. As a result of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project currently pays an
average of $20 million per year into the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act Restoration Fund.
Principles--The Board of Directors directs the Friant Water Users
Authority's support of and participation in the CalFed Bay-Delta
Program, as a means to further the interests of the Friant Water Users
Authority and its members agencies, provided that implementation of
CalFed is consistent with the following policy principles and
guidelines:
1. In meeting all of these stated principles, it is the belief of
the Friant Water Users Authority that significant additional surface
and ground water storage will be needed in the San Joaquin Valley and
elsewhere within California.
2. Implementation of CalFed should provide for opportunities to
improve Friant Water Users Authority member agency water supply
availability and reliability with no significant degradation in overall
water quality. In no case should Authority member water supplies be put
at greater risk or reduced in their sufficiency or reliability;
3. CalFed should promote programs consistent with the goals of San
Joaquin River restoration;
4. The facilities depended upon, either directly or indirectly, by
Friant Water Users Authority member agencies must be protected from
degradation;
5. Oversight and management of the CalFed Bay-Delta Program should
achieve the following results:
a. Provide opportunities for meaningful participation by
Friant Water Users Authority representatives in actual
decisions in prioritization, program calibration and regulatory
adaptive management;
b. Decision making based upon the best available science;
c. Provide long-term stability and regulatory assurances;
d. Provide fiscal responsibility while providing value to
Friant Water Users Authority member agency water users;
e. Provide a fair allocation of costs, commensurate with
benefits received.
6. CalFed should recognize the regulatory and water supply baseline
from which benefits are measured as being the conditions as they
existed prior to the implementation of the protections for the winter
run salmon and the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act;
7. CalFed should promote efficient water use through incentive-
based, cost-effective (to those paying the costs) implementation of
conservation and recycling programs;
8. Implementation of CalFed should be consistent with the San
Joaquin River Agreement;
9. Implementation of CalFed should not jeopardize the continued
ability of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to perform under the Exchange
Contract by providing water sources other then as a result of water
releases from Friant Dam, in fulfillment of that contract; and
10. Implementation of CalFed should not result in any involuntary
redistribution or taking of water supplies or water rights from
existing users currently putting water to beneficial use within their
rights as provided for under state and federal law.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Hall of ACWA. Steve, if you would
explain ACWA to everybody.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN K. HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES
Mr. Hall. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
My name is Steve Hall. I represent the Association of
California Water Agencies.
Like you, Senator, we represent both the east side and the
west side of the San Joaquin Valley, and so I feel your pain.
And we also represent water agencies throughout the State of
California, both agricultural and urban water agencies.
I want to begin, if I may, by thanking you for your
longstanding leadership, not just with this legislation, but
for a long period of time; and most recently for your stirring
and, fortunately, effective defense of the CALFED appropriation
of $40 million last night on the Senate floor.
It is money that is badly needed to keep this program
viable and--in fact, if I may, I want to harken back to a
couple of things you said last night in defending this
appropriation.
First, analogizing it to the energy crisis that we face in
California: There are some very clear parallels between the
energy crisis that we face and the water crisis that we are
about to face in California.
The water crisis is temporarily hidden, but it is very
real; and we are in the first of what unfortunately could be
several dry years, where we will definitely begin to overshadow
our current energy crisis.
And we could hopefully prevent it, if we are lucky enough
to avoid some dry years in the next few and if we move with
this legislation to try to bring the parties together and
invest in our infrastructure, so we can avoid a similar crisis.
The other comment you made last night that I think is
analogous is what we are experiencing now in the Klamath. This
bill, this program is very important to California. But I
really think it is important throughout the West.
I have the privilege of working with water professionals in
other Western States. And everywhere I go, the issues, the
problems are the same, whether it is in the Columbia Basin or
on the Colorado River, in Klamath or in our Bay-Delta estuary,
the growing tension between preserving our environmental values
and serving a growing population throughout the West.
If you read the popular press, you come to believe that
there have to be winners and losers in this fight, that it is
fish versus farmers; that farmers have to suffer in order to
protect fish or vice versa; that somehow habitat and humanity
cannot coexist.
Well, CALFED is dedicated to the proposition that it need
not be that way. And we can have a healthy ecosystem and a
healthy economy. We can have a growing Western population and
maintain robust fish and wildlife populations.
Senator, beginning in the early 1990's, you began to take a
leadership role in this. I think you have what very few
political leaders have, a hard-wired genetic code that gives
you the incurable optimism necessary to do this. I feel sorry
for you----
Senator Burns. Is that good or bad?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. Well, it is bad for her, but it is really good
for the rest of us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. Beginning first with Governor Wilson and then
Governor Davis, with Governor--with President Clinton and now
with President Bush, there seems to be one common denominator--
there were two Governors, two Presidents, and one Senator, who
are willing to stick their necks out to try to get something
done in California water.
And the result is we now have a model program. The CALFED
program is a balanced program of ecosystem restoration which,
by the way, the water users fully support. It is in our
enlightened self interest to support the ecosystem restoration
because we need to have healthy fish populations or our water
supplies become unreliable.
The law requires it; our environmental ethic dictates it.
We are going to have an environmental restoration program as
part of this. We already do.
It has got all of the water management tools that people
talk about, conservation, reclamation, water transfers. It has
got conveyance improvements. It has got a focus on drinking
water quality, which we badly need in our system because we
have increasing Federal mandates and a public that demands that
their water be safe to drink. And there is only one way to
provide that and that is to invest in the system.
It has also got storage, which is controversial with some,
but I could not agree with you more, Senator. We have to have
it. It is an essential tool--not a desirable tool, an essential
tool--to meeting our water needs in the future.
We have all of these things in the package because we do
need them all. And there is one other thing. We need to have a
balanced implementation of these things. We cannot run out
ahead in the implementation of one feature of this and leave
the others behind because, you know what? In California,
consensus breaks down quickly. It is a wonderful concept. It
breaks down as soon as somebody gets what they want without
bringing the others along.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Hall. Senator, I cannot stress this importantly enough:
The authorization process in your bill has to be correct so
that we stay linked together, so that no one interest group
gets out ahead of the other. If we fail to succeed in doing
that, then I do not believe ultimately the CALFED program can
succeed. So we are pledged to work with you in crafting
legislative language that does that.
Now, why should people across the country care? It is a
wonderful program for California, but why should other people
care? Well, first, the Federal Government should care because
it has the largest single water project in the State.
So if nothing else, the Federal Government should be
interested in protecting its investment and continuing to
deliver the water that it has contracted with people to
deliver.
Second, this will help California live within its $4.4
million acre feet Colorado River entitlement, secondly. And I
think most importantly, I spoke earlier in my testimony about
the problems being similar throughout the West. Well, I think
we now have a model program that can be used throughout the
West to balance the needs of the environment with human needs
and get past these thorny ESA and other water conflict problems
that we face throughout the West. But we have got to pass this
bill in order to make it a model and a precedent for other
areas of the West.
So in closing, I just want to urge the subcommittee--though
I see that there are not many members of the subcommittee
left----
Senator Feinstein. Oh, that is all right. Staffs are here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. I got it.
Senator Feinstein. Believe me, on this stuff, that counts.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. I want to urge the subcommittee to mark this bill
up promptly, to move it to full committee and to the Senate
floor and let us get this program underway. It is long overdue
and badly needed. And I will close again in thanking you,
Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen K. Hall, Executive Director, Association
of California Water Agencies
I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is
Steve Hall, and I am executive director of the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA), the largest and oldest collection of
public water agencies in California. ACWA's members are responsible for
90% of the water delivered in the state--our smallest member serves
fewer than 50 people, and our largest serves 17 million urban southern
Californians. My testimony today is intended to illustrate a looming
water crisis that is waiting for California and the western United
States. It's a real crisis, and one that we can go a long way toward
preventing with the bill before you now, Senator Feinstein's S. 976.
By all accounts, California is an engine of economic growth that
provides momentum for neighboring western states and the nation.
California is home to 11 percent of America's population, accounts for
12 percent of our gross domestic product, 50 percent of the nation's
fruits and vegetables, and serves as a research and development haven
for high technology. California does all this with roughly 76 million
acre-feet of water that is captured for human uses every year, or about
35 percent of all the water that falls on the state annually.
But California's contribution to the national economy is
increasingly held hostage to an unstable water supply. New
environmental regulations governing the allocation of water, layered
atop progressively more stringent federal drinking water standards, are
placing increasing demands on existing dams, canals and treatment
facilities that in most cases were built decades ago. Too often,
federal mandates dictating the quality or use of water have not been
accompanied by the investments necessary to make those goals possible.
At the same time, the inevitably of drought looms always on the
horizon, threatening to further turn the screws on a tightening
regulatory vise.
We've seen this type of scenario before. In the years leading up to
California's current energy crisis, the state's construction of new
power generation and transmission facilities ground to a halt. A
surplus of power enjoyed during the mid-1990s evaporated into a sharp
electricity deficit last summer. Since then, California has had to
struggle to keep the lights on, and while energy supplies are
improving, the entire west is paying the price for this inaction. We
run the same risk with water, with far more dire results. Fortunately,
we have a bill before you today that will provide a good part of the
investment needed to avert a near certain crisis.
II. OVERVIEW OF CALFED AND S. 976
Beginning in the mid 1990s, Senator Feinstein worked with then-
Governor Wilson and later Governor Davis to develop a partnership
between California and Washington to address the problem of growing
water shortages. That partnership came to be known as CALFED.
CALFED is a collaborative water effort undertaken by 19 state and
federal resource agencies with jurisdiction in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Bay-Delta. It's mission is ``to develop and implement a long-
term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve
water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System.'' The
Bay-Delta region, referred to as CALFED's ``solution area,'' forms the
hub of our water delivery system, and provides water to 23 million
urban and rural Californians. It irrigates several million acres of
farmland, which produce a significant portion of the national food
supply. The Bay-Delta is a resource base for the entire western U.S.
Founded in 1995, CALFED first received federal funding in 1996
under a three-year, $430 million authorization to authorize the
development of the full CALFED plan. This bill authorizes the
implementation of that plan. The plan is focused on bringing water
demand and supply into balance, restoring the ecosystem and conveyance
capacity of the state's most important watershed and improving source
water quality for over two-thirds of the state's residents.
Why is that important beyond California? Because, the CALFED
Program offers benefits for the entire western United States. First,
because CALFED restores an ecosystem of national and international
importance. The Bay-Delta is a central corridor for migrating birds on
the pacific flyway, and supports more than 750 species of fish,
mammals, and birds, many of them threatened or endangered. This fragile
ecosystem is as significant as the Everglades, Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay, where similarly broad state-federal projects have moved
forward with bipartisan Congressional support.
Second, if California is to solve its intractable water problems--
problems with ample potential to spill over into neighboring states--it
must begin with the Bay-Delta. Within the complexities and competing
ideas for how best to implement CALFED, there lies a genuine
opportunity for Congress and the state to turn an environmental crisis
into a lasting regional success.
There are many more reasons for the federal government to take a
leadership role in the Bay-Delta, ranging from compliance with the
federal Endangered Species Act to the regulatory objectives of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. It is an area where government can do its
best work; to prevent a water crisis, to restore the environment, and
foster cooperative relationships between the state, local and federal
governments. The federal government is also a major stakeholder in the
outcome of CALFED, since it operates the single largest water project
in the state--the Central Valley Project.
III. URGENCY OF CALFED
Efforts to resolve California's water problems are always going to
be accompanied by controversy. There are too many interests, too many
local and regional problems, and too few funds for any effort to please
all parties all of the time. That is what makes leadership so essential
to making real progress in the arid west.
The millions of people streaming to California each year from other
states and abroad are not going to wait for the perfect water pact to
be settled before they make the state their home. The demand for food
does not taper off while farmers consider uncertain water supplies.
Floods will not wait for Delta levees to reach total readiness.
California will have 15 million more people before CALFED's plan is
fully implemented, and none of these factors can wait while we try to
craft the perfect bill and the perfect Program.
They won't wait, and neither will Congress. Several times during
the past decade, Congress and the President have approved sweeping new
drinking water quality standards--on arsenic, radon, perchlorate,
cryptosporidium, and other water contaminants. As more is known about
elements within our drinking water, policymakers and the people you
represent aren't waiting to demand water of consistently higher
quality, even at a consistently higher cost. Programs like CALFED are
established to help address these health issues, and accommodate the
increases in supply that are necessary to improve water quality.
In the years since construction of the Central Valley Project and
the State Water Project, no equally large water project has been
contemplated or allowed to move forward in California. The very few
local facilities built since the SWP often required years of public
review and inevitable political controversy. Nevertheless, in the last
30 years, only two regional reservoirs have been built in California,
even though eight million people have come to the state during that
time. Meanwhile, new awareness of environmental water needs and
commitments to protect salmon have further directed away several
million acre-feet of water to meet new environmental mandates. This
rededication of resources, coupled with rapid population growth, has
vastly destabilized California's water picture.
The CALFED Program, and all it hopes to accomplish for California,
will be at risk without S. 976, but with infinitely greater
consequences, for wildlife, for agriculture, for our cities and for
public safety. Five years of planning, and future of water wars, demand
action now.
Much has been written about California's energy crisis, and how
stymied efforts to expand the state's water supply portend a crisis of
even greater proportions for California water. ACWA agrees
wholeheartedly with that analogy, and has worked hard to bring that
message to Congress. Today, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
can decide whether to prevent a crisis, or end up responding to it two
or three years down the road. We believe S. 976 and the CALFED Program
is the solution. We urge you to work with Senator Feinstein in assuring
its passage. ACWA is committed to assisting in that effort.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Somach.
STATEMENT OF STUART L. SOMACH, PARTNER,
SOMACH, SIMMONS AND DUNN, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Somach. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I will answer
your question, I guess, as to who I am here representing,
first. It is probably a good idea.
I actually have been asked and have somewhat the
interesting task of representing two disparate client bases.
The first is northern California. As you are aware, I am the
general counsel of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the
largest agricultural water district in northern California.
GCID supports the CALFED process, believes that S. 976 is a
really good bill. We support it. We think it is a good
foundation for further discussion as we move through the
legislative process.
But I also am here representing districts located on the
west side of the San Joaquin Valley, the folks that have been
referred to several times in terms of the assurance language.
And as I will focus on a little bit in a moment, the west side
San Joaquin Valley landowners with respect to both CALFED and
S. 976 have contrasting views of those processes and the
legislation from those of my clients in Northern California and
GCID.
I wanted to note before I get into the substance of the
legislation as it reflects to those two client bases, another
client that I represent--because I think it is, in fact, most
relevant to what is going on here. We have heard these clients
referred to often today, but I represent the Klamath Project
Water Users in southern Oregon and northern California.
I am lead litigation counsel for them in litigation
challenging what I consider to be an unfortunate and
inappropriate decision of the United States to reduce to
essentially zero the water supplies to the Klamath Project
farmers.
And I raise this representation here because it has made me
keenly aware on a very personal level of the disaster that can
accompany Federal regulatory decision-making if we do not
adequately address environmental and water supply problems in a
timely and appropriate manner.
The Klamath experience teaches, among other things, that we
cannot just nibble away at the edges of a problem, but rather
we must address them directly, affirmatively if we are going to
achieve success.
And in this context, to the extent that my comments at
times are blunter than perhaps I ought to be, it comes directly
from the horrible disaster and agony that I am in--and I only
am doing it in a representational manner. I am not the farmers
that are experiencing the hardships that exist on the Klamath
today.
Let me move to GCID first. And I would just simply say that
in general because of its location, because of the seniority of
its water rights, GCID has enjoyed sufficient water supplies to
allow it to provide irrigation water to lands within the
district.
We have not suffered shortages in the normal and ordinary
way that folks south of the Delta have experienced shortages.
Nonetheless and in spite of that favored position, we know
first-hand what these regulatory limitations can do.
We were the first, and for awhile, the only district to
ever be shut down because of Endangered-Species-Act-related
limitations. It had to do with faulty fish screens. We were
shut down entirely.
Thank heavens, working closely with State and Federal
agencies pursuant to authority, cost-sharing, appropriations
that you assisted us in obtaining over the last 10 years, we
are done with what is now the world's largest fish screen at
the cost of about $80 million of State, Federal and GCID
monies.
And it is that experience that we have learned from, that
in spite of good water supply fortune, we must be concerned
about the larger problems, both environmental and water supply
that exists within the State. And as a consequence, that is
what our support of CALFED and S. 976 derives from.
And as you know in that context, we have worked closely
with the northern California Water Association. And we have
been working hard in terms of developing what we call
integrated water supply management programs, ones where we take
the entire water resource mix that we have available to us and
we put them together. We use conjunctive use, surface water,
stored water, and in terms of trying to meet first the
Sacramento Valley's needs for water and then hopefully
environmental and south of Delta water needs also.
The idea is if we can better manage and utilize our water
supply in the northern part of the State, we ought to be able
to build and increase the pie. That is what we did. That is how
we resolved what could have been very contentious litigation
first before the State Water Resources Control Board and then
before the courts, when we resolved through an agreement with a
broad base of water users, including the State and Federal
projects, through the Phase Eight Agreement, a management
scenario that looks toward building projects as opposed to
fighting over scarce water supplies.
Integral to that solution is the Sites Reservoir Project
that the Senator mentioned earlier. And I appreciate the
detail, in fact, that you have in mind with respect to what
that project is and what it does.
Noticing my time, let me turn quickly to the assurances
associated with the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. I
heard Senator Burns talk about those assurances, and I was
representing the whole of the Central Valley Project Water
Association back in 1992.
Those promises were made personally. They were made to the
landowners. They were made within the litigation--legislation.
Those promises, to date, have never ever been achieved.
If there is a frustration with this issue, it is not one
that is derived from anything other than the fact that this is
not a clean slate that you are legislating on; it is one that
begins at least back to 1992, where the west side was
essentially getting 100 percent of supply. And today, after
those promises, the west side is at about 45 percent of supply.
We have looked at the language--the new language that you
have proposed, and I think you mentioned the one comment that
was provided to you, that the language ``pursuant to'' would
make that language acceptable to the west side of the San
Joaquin Valley and would shift our non-opposition but non-
support of the legislation to one where we could honestly
support that legislation.
I have heard a lot about mandates here. I am not certain
that there is anything in any of the legislation that mandates
anything. What we do think though is that the assurances,
however you characterize them, ought to be moved out of the
findings provision in the bill and made a substantive portion
of the legislation, like other----
Senator Feinstein. We did that. That is what somebody is--
was referring to earlier.
Mr. Somach. That is right.
Senator Feinstein. We did it at the Governor's request
actually and moved it into the substance of the bill.
Mr. Somach, we are going to run out of time----
Mr. Somach. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Because--but let me--you
know, you are tough lawyer. I know that. Having said that, I
wish you, while you are here, Richard Moss and the others could
sit down with Patrick Wright on this language.
We are trying to be within the record of decision. We are
trying not to have a lawsuit challenging it. I know the
Governor's feelings on it very well, because I talked with him
before the implementation plan was announced on it. We just
need to find a way.
And so if I could ask Patrick: Would you sit down with both
sides--I think Birminghan is here--is here somewhere too--and
see if you can get something that follows the ROD that isn't
going to be litigated and give me that language. Is that
agreed?
Mr. Wright. We will do everything we can to try to do that.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, you hedged.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. The answer is ``Yes, Senator.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wright. We will be there. We will be there with them.
Whether they will agree, that is----
Mr. Somach. We want to fix the problem. We will be there
also, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. All right. Thank you. And thank you very
much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Somach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stuart L. Somach, Partner, Somach, Simmons &
Dunn, Sacramento, CA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Stuart
Somach. I am a water rights and environmental lawyer representing
clients West-wide. In particular, and in the context of this testimony,
I am General Counsel for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
(``GCID''), the largest agricultural water district in Northern
California. GCID supports the CALFED process and believes that S. 976
constitutes a good foundation upon which final legislation can be
based.
Also relevant to my instant testimony is my representation of the
districts located on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. As I will
discuss below, the views of Westlands, and other west-side San Joaquin
Valley landowners, with respect to both CALFED and S. 976, contrast
with those of GCID.
Finally, I must also note that I represent water users within the
Klamath Project in Southern Oregon and Northern California and, in that
regard, am lead litigation counsel for the Klamath Irrigation District,
Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Project Water Users Association
and named landowners in litigation challenging the unfortunate and
inappropriate decision of the United States to reduce to essentially
zero the water supplied to Klamath Project farmers.
I raise representation of Klamath Project water users here, even
though it is not directly relevant to CALFED or S. 976, because it has
made me keenly aware of the disaster that can accompany federal
regulatory decision-making if we do not adequately address
environmental and water supply problems in a timely and appropriate
manner.
The Klamath experience teaches, among other things, that we cannot
just nibble away at the edges of a problem, but rather we must address
them directly and affirmatively if we are to achieve success.
GCID/NCWA
As I noted earlier, I am General Counsel for GCID. GCID is the
largest agricultural water district in Northern California. GCID also
has among the most senior appropriative water rights on the Sacramento
River and holds a water rights settlement contract with the United
States. In return for GCID's acquiescence in the United States'
diversion of water from the Sacramento River for the Central Valley
Project (``CVP''), GCID is entitled to 105,000 afa of CVP water.
In general, because of its location and the seniority of its water
rights, GCID has enjoyed sufficient water supplies to allow it to
provide irrigation water to lands within the district. Nonetheless, and
in spite of its senior water rights, GCID knows first hand the impact
of federal regulation. GCID was the first district to be enjoined from
pumping water through district facilities because of Endangered Species
Act limitations. This occurred when faulty fish screens took endangered
winter run salmon as GCID attempted to undertake normal water
diversions.
Though initially attempting to avoid the reality of the problem,
GCID ultimately realized that the situation required affirmative and
positive action on its part. Consequently, working closely with state
and federal agencies, and pursuant to authority and cost-share funding
provided for within the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(``CVPIA''), a state-of-the-art fish screen was designed, permitted,
and constructed. That screen (the largest flat plate fish screen in the
world) and associated facilities will ultimately cost about $80
million. Not even one winter run salmon has been taken since the
district first took affirmative action to address the situation.
I detail this history, at least in part, to explain the context for
GCID's support of CALFED and the effort evidenced in S. 976. We have
learned by experience that in spite of our good water supply fortune,
we must be concerned about the larger problems, environmental and water
supply, that exist within the state.
In this context, GCID works closely with other Northern California
water interests through the efforts of the Northern California Water
Association (``NCWA''). NCWA is a geographically diverse organization,
extending from California's Coast Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills,
and nearly 180 miles from Redding to Sacramento. NCWA's members rely on
the waters of the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba and American Rivers,
smaller tributaries and groundwater to irrigate nearly 850,000 acres
that produce every type of food and fiber grown in the region. Many of
its members, including GCID, also provide water supplies to state and
federal wildlife refuges, and much of this land serves as important
seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and other
wildlife.
Over the past years, GCID, working with NCWA and other Northern
California water users, has worked diligently to improve both water
supply and environmental protections within the Sacramento Valley. In
this context, they have undertaken projects which will provide water
security not only for Northern California, but for other regions of
California as well.
AN INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY WILL
IMPROVE WATER SUPPLY, QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
GCID and other Northern California water users have committed to
help improve water supply reliability, water quality and environmental
benefits. The Sacramento Valley's initiative and effort to help protect
salmon and other aquatic species is unprecedented and is now recognized
as one of the most progressive voluntary salmon restoration efforts in
the United States. Today, more than a dozen NCWA members, representing
over 500,000 acres of irrigable land, have either completed or are in
various stages of developing screens to prevent fish entrainment at
their diversions. This, of course, includes the GCID fish screen I
mentioned earlier. Many NCWA members, including GCID, have also
initiated far-reaching efforts to refurbish fish ladders, construct
siphons, remove dams, create habitat conservation plans and implement
other habitat improvement projects to enhance the environment, while at
the same time improving water supply reliability.
Additionally, GCID and other Northern California water users have
embarked on an integrated water management program that has broad
support from water suppliers and local governments throughout the
Sacramento Valley. This integrated program includes these fish passage
improvements (fish screens and siphons), groundwater management,
evaluation of the Sites off-stream storage reservoir, flood protection,
water use efficiency programs, potential expanded storage in Lake
Shasta, intra-regional water transfers and exchanges, and water shed
management.
During the past year this integrated program led to an
unprecedented water rights settlement among water users throughout
California. This settlement, now known as the Sacramento Valley Water
Management Agreement, and the ensuing integrated water management
program, avoided the extremely contentious Phase 8 Bay-Delta water
rights proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board. The
parties to the agreement include NCWA, the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (``USBR''), the Department of Water Resources (``DWR''),
the federal contractors in the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water
Authority, the State Water Contractors, and the Contra Costa Water
District. This proceeding would have pitted these parties from
throughout the state against each other. This integrated program will
now serve as the heart of a regional strategy for the Sacramento
Valley.
The Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement and integrated
water management program focus on meeting 100% of the water supply
demands within the Sacramento Valley during all year types, both now
and into the future. Northern California water users believe that once
the full demands within the Sacramento Valley are met, this integrated
program will help make water supplies available for use in and beyond
the Bay-Delta to meet water quality standards, and provide for export
water users in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, the Central
Coast, and as assets for the Environmental Water Account (``EWA'') and
other environmental programs.
The parties to the agreement will, during the next five months,
prepare a joint work plan for short-term Sacramento Valley water
management projects to implement the agreement that will describe this
integrated program in more detail. Work plans on longer-term projects
will follow.
SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS ARE NOW NECESSARY TO IMPROVE WATER SECURITY FOR THE
SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND CALIFORNIA
To improve water security for the Sacramento Valley, leadership is
now critical to empower regional solutions, provide for infrastructure
throughout California and streamline and reform the regulatory process
to accomplish these goals. These efforts are essential and are all
dealt with in S. 976. This forms the basis of our support for S. 976.
Empower a Regional Solution for the Sacramento Valley
California history has shown that solutions to water problems in
the state have typically been successful at the local and regional
level. Very few solutions fit every part of our extremely diverse
state. There have been few instances when a top-down, one-size-fits-
all, bureaucratic policy or law has helped the state or has been
implemented. Instead, California water users are now poised to advance
a series of regional solutions and local partnerships that will serve
California's needs for many years to come. The integrated program
described above is an example of a regional solution for the Sacramento
Valley, but it can only be implemented with state and federal
leadership empowering local interests to take the actions necessary for
these programs to succeed. Any bureaucratic efforts to impose top-down
solutions, like past efforts, are doomed to failure and have the
potential to destroy the tremendous progress that has been made on
these regional solutions.
Like the Sacramento Valley integrated program described above,
every regional strategy will include the appropriate mix of
infrastructure needs, storage, conveyance, water transfers and
exchanges, fish passage improvements, water conservation and
efficiency, groundwater management, flood protection, watershed
management and environmental improvements. To fully empower these
regional solutions requires state and federal funding and the
regulatory streamlining necessary to implement these programs.
Streamline and Reform the Regulatory Process
With nearly 18 federal and state agencies under the respective
executive branches that dictate California water policy, it is critical
to coordinate and ultimately streamline the work of the numerous
agencies with jurisdiction over water resources in California.
The framework to create CALFED in June 1994 called for cooperation
and collaboration between the federal and state agencies that oversee
water in California. It is essential that these agencies continue to
work together in this manner. Over the past seven years, CALFED has
evolved from a concept to streamline agency efforts to a massive
bureaucratic program. For CALFED to be successful as it transitions
from a planning program to an implementation agency, it must move from
a top-down bureaucratic organization to an organization that
facilitates and fosters a series of regional strategies with local
control and governance. Most notably, it must streamline the regulatory
process to assure that these programs will be implemented. Specific
examples include the facilitation of intra-regional water transfers and
exchanges and expedited permitting by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Significantly, this means that CALFED and its member agencies will
serve in a more limited, albeit more effective, role to advance water
and environmental policy in the state. It also means that CALFED will
serve a critical role to coordinate regional strategies to ensure that
they fit together in a manner that provides statewide benefits, and
also provide a broad-based governance strategy and oversight capability
to ensure appropriate and efficient implementation of all CALFED
program elements.
Sites Reservoir
S. 976 also recognizes the need for study and assessment of
``north-of-Delta storage.'' This, of course, is a positive and
essential element of S. 976. It is generally recognized that the
fundamental water supply and environmental problems that currently face
California cannot be properly addressed without the addition of surface
water storage. In this context, Sites Reservoir was identified in the
Record of Decision (``ROD'') as a critical element which should be
pursued, along with local partners within Northern California, and that
final decisions with respect to its feasibility and authorization
should be made not later than 2004.
Sites Reservoir, when constructed, will not only add generally to
the overall state water supply but, operated in an integrated fashion,
will allow Northern California, the CVP and State Water Project to
better maximize the ability to fully utilize water resources available
to them. In this context, GCID, USBR, the Department of the Interior
and other state, federal and local interests executed, as provided for
in the ROD, a Memorandum of Understanding to proceed with analysis and
environmental review of the Sites Reservoir in order to allow for
decisions on final authorization by 2004.
S. 976 could be improved through more specific reference to Sites
Reservoir, as is done in the ROD, instead of the generalized ``north-
of-Delta storage'' language currently utilized in the bill. Moreover,
the addition of a time frame for analysis ending in 2004 would also
make S. 976 more consistent with the ROD.
Implementation of the Record of Decision
Much work was done by CALFED in preparation of the ROD. That
progress should not be lost. As a consequence, S. 976 would be improved
by clarifying that the project alternative screening process provided
for in the ROD will be adhered to and that one CALFED program element
will not be treated as an alternative to another CALFED program
element. Again, among other things, this will allow the full
integration of all water supply alternatives, maximizing the full
utilization of the water resource.
Conclusion with Respect to GCID/NCWA
While GCID/NCWA believe that language with respect to Sites
Reservoir and project element alternatives analysis could be
strengthened, they, nonetheless, fully support S. 976.
Westside San Joaquin Valley
As with GCID/NCWA, the west side of the San Joaquin Valley view of
CALFED and S. 976 is forged by circumstance and experience.
Unfortunately, the west side of the San Joaquin Valley cannot support
S. 976 in its present form. As you know, west side agricultural water
users are among the south-of-Delta Central Valley Project agricultural
contractors which, as acknowledged by the California Water Future, A
Framework for Action, have been ``disproportionately affected by recent
regulatory actions'' constraining operations of the state's water
projects. Critical to the west side's support of the Framework for
Action was its commitment that the normal year water supply for south-
of-Delta CVP agricultural contractors would be increased by fifteen
percent, to sixty-five to seventy percent, with comparable improvements
in other water year types. The west side's support for the Framework
for Action was also predicated on assurances by Governor Gray Davis and
then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt that they, along with
other interested parties, would be allowed to participate in
preparation of the Record of Decision to implement the Framework
document. This was important to west side contractors because there
were numerous ambiguities in the Framework for Action that created
doubt that the water supply improvements described by the document
could be accomplished.
Notwithstanding these assurances, west side agricultural and other
interested parties were excluded from the process that produced the
CALFED Record of Decision. Rather than clarifying ambiguities in the
Framework for Action, the ROD created additional impediments to
implementation of CALFED Program elements intended to improve south-of-
Delta CVP agricultural contractor supplies. In addition, many of the
program elements described in the Framework for Action and ROD, if
implemented, will further reduce water supplies for south-of-Delta CVP
agricultural contractors. Among these are proposals to build increased
storage in the upper San Joaquin River watershed to capture flood flows
that would otherwise be diverted by the San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors under their historic water rights. When these flows are
diverted by the Exchange Contractors, demand on CVP Delta facilities is
reduced, and more water can be supplied to south-of-Delta CVP
agricultural contractors.
For these reasons, west side agricultural contractors have
consistently stated that their support of any CALFED authorization
legislation would be contingent on the legislation assuring that the
water supply commitments made in the Framework for Action will be
accomplished.
Westside agricultural contractors have been active participants in
the CALFED Program from its inception because they hoped that the
Program would restore to them the water reallocated to the environment
under the Bay-Delta Accord, Endangered Species Act, and the CVPIA.
Westside agriculture maintains that hope. However, it views
authorization of the CALFED Program from the perspective of a water
agency to whom promises were made in 1994 when it voluntarily loaned
250,000 acre-feet of its water supply to CALFED agencies for
restoration of the Bay-Delta Estuary. When then Secretary Babbitt
signed the Bay-Delta Accord on behalf of the United States, he stated:
``A deal is a deal, and if it turns out there's a need for additional
water, it will come at the expense of the federal government.''
Interior abrogated this guarantee within two years. As the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service determined additional water required
for protection and enhancement of the Bay-Delta Estuary and species
dependent on the Estuary, the water was taken from south-of-Delta CVP
agricultural contractors. As things currently stand, west side
agricultural contractors are only receiving forty-five percent of
supply.
We are mindful of S. 976's inclusion of south-of-Delta assurance
language within its findings. If history had been other than it has
been, this language might have been sufficient. However, every time
Congress has addressed this issue, it has done so in a similar manner,
leaving the accomplishment of the promises contained within the
legislation to the discretion of federal agencies. In each case, those
agencies have exercised their discretion to either ignore the findings
or, worse, to somehow justify taking more water away from the west side
of the San Joaquin Valley. It is in this context that the west side of
the San Joaquin Valley cannot support S. 976 as it is currently
written.
Conclusion With Respect to West Side of San Joaquin Valley
The west side cannot support, but does not oppose, S. 976. The west
side, however, would support S. 976 if the assurance language found
within S. 976's findings were made a substantive provision of the
legislation. This, of course, could and should be done to make clear
that fulfilling these assurances is a mandate must be undertaken in a
manner that does not adversely affect the water supplies of other CVP
contractors.
CONCLUSION
My view, consistent with what I have testified to above, is that
CALFED and S. 976 are good things. As noted above, GCID supports CALFED
and S. 976. Bluntness in pointing out what could and should be done to
make both CALFED and S. 976 work better derives from the brutal
experience of the Klamath Project. There we learned that a failure to
fully address the whole of a problem in a timely manner only makes
ultimate resolution more difficult or impossible.
We have here the opportunity to avoid a Klamath disaster for the
bulk of California. In addition to what is contained within S. 976, it
should also be more specific with respect to Sites Reservoir, insure
integrated water management through clarifying language with respect to
program element alternatives, and provide solid substantive assurances
to agricultural water users on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Cunneen.
STATEMENT OF JIM CUNNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SAN JOSE SILICON
VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SAN JOSE, CA
Mr. Cunneen. Thank you very much, Senator.
Is there any language that cannot be litigated in this
society? I do not know. But thank you for including our voice
in this hearing and the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Jim Cunneen. I am the CEO of the San Jose Silicon
Valley Chamber of Commerce. We represent nearly 2,000
businesses throughout the full spectrum of the economy in the
San Jose Metropolitan area, so small retailers, small
manufacturers, mid-level service firms and large high-tech
employers that have built Santa Clara Valley's resilient
economy.
And I want to commend you for your conduct today in leading
this meeting. It is a unique skill to be able to bring so many
different groups together and do so skillfully and still stand
for progress. And that means sometimes alienating certain
groups. It is a difficult task.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Cunneen, I have had my moments.
Mr. Cunneen. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I will tell you that. Some of the people
at the table have witnessed them.
Mr. Cunneen. As a former State legislator, I have had my
frustrations, too. But I want to express our organization's
support for your efforts and your bill as introduced.
I have not had a chance to read all of the amendments, but
we understand legislation is a work in progress. And to stay
true to the record of decision will take real political skill
on your part, and we stand ready to stand with you in that.
We would urge you, though, to not stray too far from your
original bill and continue to insist on the level playing
field.
I remember when we put the initiative on the ballot to fund
a number of important water projects. Frankly, it was very
difficult to get Republican votes at the time, because the
funding was all for essentially environmental mitigation
projects.
There was no funding for storage projects. And I remember
working closely with Governor Davis and in the end of the day
providing the Republican votes, putting that together with him
for the two-thirds majority on that issue with a new plan to
provide some storage funding in our State budget, the last
State budget that I had served with.
So I know how difficult it is, but the record of decision
is very clear about storage and conveyance elements and I am
glad to hear your strong voice for that, as well, today. And I
feel very comfortable in the direction that you are moving.
I am here mostly to tell you today that our region will
continue to be a high-tech and manufacturing leader, but it
cannot do so without a clean and stable water supply. And that
factor is an absolute prerequisite for future growth.
And simply put, there is a lot at stake. We could fracture
a community with the Nation's largest high-tech presence in a
number of jobs and with a combined high-tech payroll of $56
billion, with $22 billion of that in the city of San Jose
alone.
From the business perspective, it is very, very clear. If
we are perceived by others as a region that is water short, in
addition to the high cost of living, the traffic, the other
things that burden the Bay Area, it will be difficult for us to
sustain the businesses that complement the high-tech and
biotech industrial base that is important to our nation's
future and its standing in the global marketplace as well.
We believe that the California and the Federal Government
can find a way to assure residents and prospective businesses
and the environmental community that we can successfully handle
those issues in balance if we stick close to the knitting if
you--as you have insisted on in this hearing, through phase one
and the record of decision.
So we think your leadership is essential in that process.
We would like you to keep your focus on a couple of key areas.
One, Federal investments in the Delta have to be increased.
There really have been no substantial investments for many
decades in that infrastructure.
It is at the center of our water delivery system. And while
the people of California did pass Prop 13 and I gave you a
sense of some of the story of how that came together, it does--
this legislation has to keep the level playing field in mind
for storage and conveyance elements, because that was not in
there.
Two, we believe that the CALFED process must also include--
if you do not include the storage elements, the point I want to
make is that we are going to continue to rely on our allotment
of the California--or Colorado River allotments.
We always exceed what is California's allotment. And
without those new storage facilities specifically delineated in
the bill and with strong--whether we call it preauthorization
language or whether we call it expedited process--we need to
stay very clear and specific on those issues.
So let me just conclude by saying we want to offer our
committed support to this effort. We stand ready and our
industry leaders that make up our Chamber of Commerce, that is
high-tech CEO's, but also the business supply chain, stand
ready to support your efforts as well.
I have talked to many of them. What they want desperately
is for us to avoid another energy crisis. They see CALFED and
your efforts as one way to show that we have a plan in place,
that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that
California can sustain its economic prosperity and leadership
in the world.
Boy, I will tell you, the energy crisis will pale by
comparison if, in fact, there is a severe water shortage. We
fear the dry year when it could impact our manufacturing
process. So we would implore the U.S. Senate and the House to
act very quickly on your legislation. And anything we can do in
follow up to the hearing to bring parties together, we stand
ready to do so.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunneen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Cunneen, President and CEO, San Jose Silicon
Valley Chamber of Commerce, San Jose, CA
Chairman Dorgan, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Jim Cunneen, and I
am President and CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of
Commerce. I am here to express my organization's support for Senator
Feinstein's S. 976, a measure to re-authorize the CalFed Bay-Delta
Program and provide the federal appropriation necessary for its
implementation.
The Chamber of Commerce represents a diverse network of small
retailers, small manufacturers, mid-size, service-sector firms and
large high tech enterprises--companies that have together created
Silicon Valley's resilient economy. Representing nearly 2,000
companies, our Chamber is the largest non-profit organization
representing the entire supply chain of business enterprises throughout
the San Jose Metropolitan Area.
Even before the Silicon Valley became a household name, our members
have been a part of the region's ups and downs. After years of
expansion, the high tech `dot com' economy has been a volatile one in
recent months. And while the media accounts can sound pretty grim,
we're more confident than ever that Silicon Valley's technological
revolution is far from over, and that our best days lie ahead.
I'm here today to tell you that our region can continue to be a
high-tech and manufacturing leader, but it cannot do that without a
clean, stable water supply. This factor is an absolute prerequisite for
future growth. Simply put, if reliability and water quality problems in
the Bay-Delta are not resolved, we could fracture a community with the
nation's largest high-tech presence and number of jobs, with a combined
high-tech payroll of $56 billion, with $22 billion of that in San Jose
alone.
California and the federal government can find a way to assure
residents and prospective businesses that the environmental and water
supply challenges in the Bay-Delta can be successfully handled. The San
Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce believes that S. 976 and CalFed
Program are the best, most comprehensive way to do that.
From the business perspective its straightforward: If we are
perceived by others as a region that is water short (in addition to
high cost of living, traffic congestion, and other issues), it will be
difficult to be able to sustain the businesses that complement the
high-tech and biotech industrial base that is so important to our
nation and its standing in the global marketplace.
We believe your subcommittee and policymakers at both the state and
federal level must address these key areas:
Federal investments in the Delta must be increased. The
Delta is at the center of our water delivery system. While the
people of California passed Proposition 13 in March 2000
providing nearly $2 billion, no new federal money was allocated
in the last session of Congress. Only with new federal
investment in this priority area can the Delta be restored to
deliver on its dual purpose--transporting water while
maintaining a healthy ecosystem that minimizes the new listings
of species.
The quality of water deliveries from the Bay-Delta must be
improved. Contaminants, both natural and man-made, inhibit the
work of CalFed's ecosystem program, and threaten high-tech
manufacturing throughout our region.
Any solutions within the CalFed process must include storage
and conveyance elements. While the Phase II Record of Decision
and EIR do include a call for surface storage, it lacks any
specifics. This is a crucial element to any fair, balanced
plan.
I am here to tell you that S. 976 takes all of these critical
factors into account.
The industries and economic success of San Jose are radiating
outward. In my area, 77 percent of all households have a computer, and
the national figure is increasing. But if the success of Silicon
Valley--in manufacturing, research and quality of life--are to take
hold in other western communities, the state must improve the ecosystem
and water management infrastructure of the Bay-Delta. I cannot stress
enough the importance of water to the fulfillment of our promising
future, and I cannot stress enough the importance of CalFed.
Environmental restoration and an enhanced water supply are not
mutually exclusive goals. They are attainable, but can only be realized
with your support for S. 976 and the work of CalFed.
I want to offer you our committed support for efforts to
reauthorize the CalFed Program. While it has met with its share of
controversy, CalFed still provides the best hope to ensure a reliable,
clean water supply in an equitable fashion for the Silicon Valley--and
all of California. You are to be commended for holding this hearing and
for fostering an atmosphere of cooperation among the various sectors of
the state's economy and major business and environmental stakeholders.
Your continued leadership will be essential to create the positive
political will to address the water supply problems facing California.
Please be a part of those solutions by supporting S. 976.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Cunneen. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Pace.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. PACE, CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA
Mr. Pace. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Feinstein
and the other distinguished members of the committee, I would
like to thank you for this opportunity to speak today about S.
976, the California Ecosystem Water Supply and Water Quality
Improvement Act.
I am Phillip Pace, chairman of the board of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. We provide
supplemental water to 17 million people in southern California
through our 26 member agencies.
High quality, reliable water is the life blood of Southern
California's $750 billion economy. Metropolitan supports S. 976
and we commend you, Senator Feinstein, for introducing it.
California, like other Western States, struggles with its
water resources, striving to balance urban, agricultural and
environmental needs. As the largest contractor of California's
State Water Project, which provides water via the Sacramento
River, the San Joaquin Bay-Delta, Metropolitan has a measured
stake in the outcome of this process.
The Bay-Delta is the heart and lungs of California's water
supply. Besides providing the drinking water for two-thirds of
the State, the Bay-Delta nourishes a substantial portion of
California's farms.
It is the State's most important fishery habitat and home
to more than 10,000 species of migratory fowl. In short, it is
a national ecological treasure closely tied to California's
economic health.
S. 976 gives us the means to preserve that treasure, while
benefitting all of the Western States. I believe it is one of
the most important pieces of water environmental resource
management legislation that has ever been proposed.
Today, I will focus my remarks on just three issues: First,
water quality; second, the need for a CALFED plan to assure our
investments in local water resource development is successful;
and third, the shifting of California to integrated resource
planning.
Metropolitan is committed to finding lasting ways to
improve the reliability and quality of water supplies, while
restoring the environment.
These reasons are simple. Water quality affects the health
and safety of all of our customers. Improvements in water
quality are critical to reducing the cost of water treatment
and delivery. And improvements in water quality determine
whether the billions of dollars already invested in local
reuse, conservation and ground water replenishment programs
will succeed.
The better our Bay-Delta water source is in quality, the
more efficiently we can use the water that we receive from the
Colorado River.
Metropolitan's resource plan calls for doubling our efforts
in recycling and ground water production. This is simply not
possible without reducing the threat of salinity in the Delta
water. The increase of salinity from Delta water will degrade
our local ground water basins and impede efforts to recycle and
reuse these limited supplies. Salinity, as many of you know, is
already an issue, a big issue in the Colorado River.
During the last decade, Metropolitan and its members have
committed over $8 billion to resolve Delta issues, to better
manage local water resources and to assure that California can
live within its 4.4 million acre-foot allocation of water from
the Colorado River.
These objectives, however, really need a CALFED plan that
coordinates efforts on a local, a State and a national level.
On a recent trip to northern California to meet with
agricultural interests, I was part of several discussions that
centered on resolving local needs while assuring a State-wide
supply of high quality water.
Water policy makers recognize that the health of the
economy and the environment are tightly linked, and that there
are benefits to this integrated approach.
S. 976 provides encouragement of local and regional
partnerships. It requires balanced supply and ecosystem
improvements.
Just a decade ago, California endured, as we all know, a
scorching 6-year drought. Then because of aggressive water--
since then, because of aggressive water management programs, we
have averted further water-related crises, so far.
The future of California depends on continuing this
progress. The California--the CALFED legislation is really a
step in the right direction.
I urge you to move this legislation forward for the benefit
of California and for the Nation. And I would like to thank you
on behalf of the Metropolitan Water District for all of your
hard work. Thank you very much, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phillip J. Pace, Chairman, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, other distinguished members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement
regarding S. 976, The California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water
Quality Improvement Act. I am Phillip Pace, Chairman of the Board of
Directors for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Metropolitan provides supplemental water supplies to the economy of
Southern California. Our service area encompasses more than 5,200
square miles and serves the needs of 17 million people through 26
member agencies. High quality, reliable water supplies are the
lifeblood of Southern California's $750 billion dollar economy.
METROPOLITAN SUPPORTS SENATE BILL 976
First, I would like to express Metropolitan's strong support for S.
976 and commend the leadership and commitment that Senator Feinstein
demonstrated through the introduction of this legislation.
For decades, California, like other western states, has struggled
with conflict over its water resources, striving to find balanced
solutions for its urban and agricultural economies and its environment.
We recognize that Metropolitan has a major stake in the outcome of this
process. We are the largest contractor of California's State Water
Project, which provides water to the Northern and Southern California
urban economies and to the state's vast agricultural economy.
Additionally, Metropolitan relies on the Colorado River, along with
other California agencies and the other six Colorado River Basin
states.
The CALFED Framework agreement of June 2000 and the subsequent
Record of Decision in August are a significant breakthrough in western
water policy. As recently described in briefing materials developed by
the California Bay-Delta Urban Coalition, the CALFED Bay-Delta program
introduces innovative approaches to meet the needs of both the economy
and the environment. This legislation not only serves California, but
also our nation's interests. It implements a program that assures
comprehensive achievement of regional health, economic and
environmental program objectives. It also preserves a national
ecological treasure, ensures necessary infrastructure for high-quality
and reliable water supplies for our residents, industries and farms,
and provides environmental benefits to California and other western
states. I believe it is one of the most important pieces of water and
environmental resource management legislation in history of the western
states.
I would like to focus my remarks today on three issues: water
quality; the need for a CALFED Plan to assure our investments in local
water resource development will be successful; and, third, the changing
paradigm in California to an integrated resource approach.
WATER QUALITY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY!
As a local businessman in Los Angeles County, I have been
privileged to serve on Metropolitan's Board of Directors for the past
five years, the past three as Chairman. During my tenure, our Board has
made a commitment to find lasting ways to improve the reliability and
quality of that supply, while restoring California's environment.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the programs associated
with the CALFED process must result in better water quality for our
customers. The reasons are simple and the arguments credible:
Water quality affects the health and safety of all our
customers;
Improvements in water quality are critical to reducing the
cost of water treatment and delivery;
Improvements in water quality will determine whether or not
the billions of dollars now being invested in local re-use,
conservation and groundwater replenishment programs will
succeed in the long run; and
The better out Bay/Delta water source is in quality, the
more efficiently we can use water from the Colorado River,
which affects other Western states.
However, increasing public health concerns and drinking water
quality regulations have challenged our approaches to providing high
quality, low-cost supplies to Southern California residents.
Over the last decade, while drinking water quality regulations have
become increasingly more stringent, little progress has been made to
reduce contaminants and bring source water quality for Delta exporters
in line with national averages.
Increasing concentrations of salinity from Delta water also degrade
our local groundwater basins and impede efforts to recycle and reuse
our limited supplies. Metropolitan's resource plan also calls for
doubling recycling and significantly increasing groundwater production.
This is simply not possible without reducing the threat of salinity in
Delta water imported into Southern California.
Metropolitan is a nationally recognized leader in funding research
and implementing new cost-effective treatment technologies. The
technical challenges and costs of removing contaminants from drinking
water supplies can be staggering. Currently, the best method to control
water quality is at the source.
If urban water agencies are forced to abandon quality at the source
and instead rely on alternative treatment technologies, the cost of
these alternative technologies will significantly exceed the cost of
conventional treatment.
Senator Feinstein's legislation will provide assurances that water
quality projects, including those identified as ``complementary
actions'' in the CALFED Record of Decision, are eligible and can
effectively compete for funding within the CALFED authorization
legislation.
A CALFED PLAN IS ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE OUR LOCAL RESOURCE INVESTMENTS
WILL BE SUCCESSFUL
During the last 10 years, Metropolitan and its member agencies have
taken key policy steps and committed significant funding to resolve
issues in the Delta and to enhance our water quality and supply
reliability through ``local'' resource programs. Altogether, the people
of Southern California have invested more than $8 billion to better
manage local water resources and to assure that California can live
within 4.4 million acre-foot allocation of water imported from the
Colorado River.
These objectives, however, cannot be achieved without a successful
CALFED plan.
THE CHANGING PARADIGM--INTEGRATED STATEWIDE APPROACH
Over the last few years, Metropolitan's Board members and I have
actively engaged other water policymakers throughout California and the
western states, in an effort to develop new approaches to solving
resource conflicts.
On a recent trip to Northern California to meet with agricultural
interests, our discussions centered on resolving local needs while
still providing statewide water supply, water quality, and
environmental benefits. What we are seeing through these discussions is
a changing paradigm on how to solve our water resource problems. There
is recognition that the health of the economy and environment are
inextricably linked, and that resource solutions provide enhanced
benefits when resolved through integrated local and regional
approaches.
Senator Feinstein's legislation provides an excellent opportunity
for implementing lasting solutions to California's water problems that
will benefit all western states and the nation. S. 976 encourages local
and regional partnerships and requires balanced water supply, water
quality and ecosystem improvements and measurable progress in all
CALFED Program areas.
CONCLUSION
The energy crisis now gripping our state affords us a unique
vantage point to contemplate the potentially severe effects that would
ensue if our state were to succumb to a water crisis of similar
magnitude. Just a decade ago, California's citizens and economy endured
the scorching effects of a six-year drought (1987-92). Since then,
thanks largely to aggressive water management programs, we have averted
further water-related crises. The future of California depends upon
continuing this progress through the enactment of legislation to
implement the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Your efforts to advance this bill signal leadership in the right
direction. We believe the CALFED legislation has the ability to provide
dramatic improvements for multiple beneficiaries.
We at Metropolitan are dedicated to working on developing a
workable approach to implement a balanced CALFED Bay-Delta program.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, members of the subcommittee, I
look forward to working with you and members of the House of
Representatives to ensure that Congress takes the necessary steps to
safeguard California's vital water resources for all beneficial uses. I
urge you to move this legislation forward for the benefit of California
and the national economy and environment.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Pace.
Mr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF GRANT DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE BAY INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I certainly admire
your stamina and your patience and your drive on this.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. As a former staff member of a member of
Congress, I also admire the staff members of the committee that
are here sitting through this.
Senator Feinstein. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. So I cannot agree with you more. And also I am
privileged to be up here with the distinguished group of
colleagues that work on California water.
My name is Grant Davis. I am the executive director of the
Bay Institute of San Francisco. We are celebrating our 20th
year of working to protect and restore the San Francisco Bay-
Delta estuary. And I am very proud of that.
We have been active over the years in efforts to implement
innovative approaches to better manage California's water
supply. The organization was heavily involved in the
development of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
And the Bay Institute was one of the three environmental
groups that actually signed the Bay-Delta Accord. And as you
know, the Bay-Delta Accord was the precursor to CALFED, where
we all are here today.
Our concern in doing this during the whole effort has been
that to reverse a century, over a century, of destruction of
the Bay-Delta environment--and this trend, as we all know, has
worsened over the years--and we still want to maintain the
economic and social benefits derived from managing the water
supplies for multiple uses.
In the interest of time--I noticed that you mentioned that.
It is a big panel today. I want to ask that my remarks be
submitted for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. And I have condensed my remarks.
I would like to call attention--I have taken the liberty of
providing a special CALFED handout. And I think it is very
helpful. This was on our record of decision. It is from the Bay
Institute's point of view and helps inform your colleagues and
staff members.
But what is most telling is the map that puts the projects
that you are discussing in the context of the watershed. And I
think you will find it helpful as a good resource tool.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. So I will put that in the record.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis. I wanted to start off by just reminding members
of the committee that we are involved in a tenuous balancing
act, and that the Bay Institute and our environmental
colleagues, as well as everyone here, have been putting in
enormous hours over the years. I would say it is now going on 6
years.
We did reach a tenuous balance in the record of decision.
And there are many, many good points of CALFED. I would say the
ecosystem restoration program, a water account, a water
efficiency program, getting into ground water management, we
have made tremendous progress.
But along this theme, just to point out where the concerns
continue to arise in the record of decision, many folks are not
aware that there really is over 1 million acre feet of surface
storage that will likely come on line with the three projects
that you are talking about in your bill, which will be the
Delta Islands, Los Vaqueros and Shasta expansions, and plus the
bypass south of the Delta.
The environmental water account is something we are very
proud to have contributed toward, helping to bring on a new
tool. But what that also provides--and someone has not
mentioned today--are the assurances to south of the Delta users
that there will be no additional water supply impacts from
endangered species protection measures.
And this year, as you may know, we exceeded the take
threefold on winter-run salmon. So we have a lot of work to do
to refine these tools that we are bringing online. And we are,
in the spirit of cooperation, willing to do so, and we are
interested in continuing to improve and refine the process.
So the message for the Bay Institute and hopefully our
colleagues here is while we have concerns and any bill
authorizing CALFED, the closer you could make that to the ROD
that was agreed upon and be consistent, the more consensus you
have.
And to try and do new things that set a precedent are going
to lead--I can speak for the colleagues that are currently
opposing the legislation. They are about 30 environmental
groups, that for the record, are in opposition, but are willing
to work with you. They basically are looking for principles
that would allow us to, in the spirit of what Congressman
Miller and Senator Boxer talked about, not provide new
precedent-setting language that could be litigated over and
over. We are doing our best to stay out of that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Grant Davis, Executive Director, The Bay
Institute of San Francisco
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. In particular, Senator
Feinstein for the invitation to testify regarding S. 976, The
California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act
of 2001.
My name is Grant Davis. I am Executive Director of The Bay
Institute of San Francisco (TBI), a non-profit organization located
just north of the Golden Gate Bridge. This year, TBI is celebrating its
twentieth year working to protect and restore the ecosystems of the San
Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the rivers, streams
and watersheds tributary to the estuary.
TBI has been very active over these years in efforts to implement
innovative approaches to better manage California's water supply. The
organization was heavily involved in the development of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and was also one of the three
environmental organizations that signed the historic Bay-Delta Accord.
As you know, the Bay-Delta Accord set new water quality standards and
was the precursor to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Our concern in doing so has been to reverse over a century of
destruction of the Bay-Delta environment--a trend that has worsened
catastrophically over the last two decades--while maintaining the
economic and social benefits derived from managing the state's water
supplies for multiple uses.
PUTTING CALFED IN CONTEXT
Prior to providing specific comments regarding S. 976, I feel it is
important to provide some context regarding the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program:
First, it is important to note that TBI and our environmental
colleagues have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy working to
help improve and shape the CALFED program. We sincerely want to see
this program succeed in restoring the ecosystem and improving
California's water supply reliability. We recognize the tremendous
complexity of this challenge, the many risks involved, as well as the
huge potential of the CALFED program.
I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of one of TBI's
publications entitled, ``CALFED Special: A Guide to the Record of
Decision'' because Committee Members may find it helpful. This report
includes a map of the extensive solution area of CALFED and highlights
some of the major program elements contained in the final plan. I have
included these elements in order to demonstrate briefly not only what
the environmental community likes about this plan, but also to make
clear just how much compromise has already occurred in order to strike
this tenuous balance and release the Record of Decision.
Some of the main components of CALFED's final plan are:
a promising Ecosystem Restoration Program, which would
restore floodplains and tidal wetlands, acquire water for
instream flows and Delta outflows, improve fish passage, and
implement hundreds of other actions for endangered species,
habitats and ecosystem improvements;
creation of a promising but also problematic new
Environmental Water Account (See Environmental Concerns Below);
an innovative Water Use Efficiency Program that would use
financial incentives to promote aggressive urban and
agricultural conservation measures and water recycling;
recharging the state's mined aquifers and using groundwater
in conjunction with surface supplies. This requires a
coordinated approach to managing groundwater supplies for their
own sake, as well as for conjunctive use. Major new groundwater
storage projects in the Central Valley are an integral element
of CALFED's approach to water supply reliability. In addition,
financial incentives and disincentives would be used to promote
completion of groundwater basin management plans and
measurement of groundwater;
a new Science Program created to ensure that state-of-the-
art research and analysis guide CALFED implementation. Under
this approach, actions will be designed to test competing
hypotheses about the most effective management approaches,
implementation activities will be monitored, and the results
assessed to help guide future actions. Samuel Luoma, Ph.D., a
distinguished Bay-Delta researcher with the U.S. Geological
Survey in Menlo Park, was hired as CALFED's Science Director.
elements of the plan that concern the environmental community
the proposal to add of over one million acre-feet of
expensive surface storage for ill-defined purposes by expanding
Shasta and Los Vaqueros Reservoirs, creating new storage on
Delta islands, and building a new bypass south of the Delta.
Environmental Water Account designed to reduce endangered
species take at the giant state and federal water project
pumps. Delta exporters would receive an unprecedented assurance
that there will be no additional water supply impacts from
endangered species protection measures.
a decision to build a controversial new diversion facility
on the Sacramento River (which some contend is the first leg of
the Peripheral Canal) if vaguely defined fishery protection and
water quality goals are not being met over the next few years.
in increments over the next few years, the State Water
Project will be allowed to use the full, currently unpermitted
capacity of its pumps in the South Delta, which would increase
Delta diversions by over 50 percent. Even the new EWA would not
be able to fully mitigate for the additional impacts on
endangered species survival and positive flow conditions from
this proposed export-pumping regime.
THE CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
ACT OF 2001 (S. 976)
I will not spend a great deal of time on specific language of the
current bill, because I understand that negotiations currently underway
may result in modified language. However, I will offer some principles
that help inform our assessment of the bill. While we recognize and
commend Senator Feinstein for the improvements that have been made to
S. 976, TBI and the environmental community continue to have
significant concerns with the legislation. As part of my testimony I
have included a copy our letter of opposition to the bill which
contains the signatures of over 30 regional, state and national
environmental, conservation, and fishing organizations. Clearly there
are provisions in this bill that threaten to wreak havoc with the
careful balance that CALFED worked so hard to achieve in August of last
year when it released its Record of Decision.
A similar number of environmental and fishing organizations support
H.R. 2404, the California Water Quality and Reliability Act legislation
in the House sponsored by Rep. George Miller.
Principles to assess a final bill authorizing CALFED. The final
bill:
should be consistent with the CALFED Plan and the Record of
Decision.
assure that any new surface storage facilities offered by
CALFED receivefull Congressional scrutiny after required
evaluations are completed. We do not support efforts to
eliminate key checks and balances in the congressional review
process by preauthorizing facilities. The costs or the benefits
they will deliver do not justify these facilities. We strongly
support the amendment, which eliminates preauthorization
language for new water development in favor of establishing a
``beneficiary pays'' requirement as was provided in the Record
of Decision.
should not go beyond the CALFED plan in assuring deliveries
to CVP agricultural contractors. The current bill reads as a
finding that orders DOI to implement the assurances language.
If not amended this would likely end up in litigation.
must not undermine the water rights of more senior water
users. As written, we believe that the bill could undermine the
water supplies for the Bay Area, Southern California and other
farmers in the Central Valley. We would recommend the
assurances section be pulled from the bill.
must not promise that taxpayers will provide more water than
these districts' contracts entitle them to. It is unfair that
taxpayers must purchase or otherwise provide water that these
contractors are not now entitled to under their contracts.
must not undermine key decisions regarding environmental
protection in the CALFED plan, which form the foundation for
the record of decision. If these are changed, the EIS and the
biological opinions would no longerbe valid. The plan would be
legally vulnerable and politically undermined.
In conclusion, the tensions that exist between competing users of
water will be exacerbated--if we do not more actively promote the tools
available to more creatively manage California's Water supplies. We
urge the Committee to help foster this spirit of creativity by
supporting and promoting measures to improve agricultural and urban
water use efficiency, increase groundwater banking and conjunctive use,
create water savings from retiring drainage problem lands, and
establish new environmental water assets. By passing CALFED authorizing
legislation that more closely follows the guiding principles outlined
above we will then be able to move forward.
If agreement cannot be reached regarding CALFED legislation this
year, the Committee might wish to consider passing a ``clean'' piece of
legislation that is entirely consistent with the Record of Decision
that would just authorize the program for another year.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you again for the
opportunity to provide these comments. I would be happy to answer any
questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Feinstein. Let me respond to that, because I do not
have a problem if we can move the process. But I have now been
here long enough to know the games that can be played to
prevent something from happening.
And this is what concerns me very much. I mean, I have had
discussions. I have had environmentalists tell me ``We will
never support a new water storage project.''
Well, you cannot solve the problem without it. So that is
the purpose of the whole balanced approach. And I would very
much appreciate your input. Work--you know, work with our
staff. We want to be within the ROD.
This is the whole direction. The people who did the
drafting of this took--was to--in essence authorized the ROD so
that CALFED can go ahead.
But I am absolutely determined that it be balanced. I am
determined that these things move ahead concurrently. I do not
know who said it earlier, but that once one group gets what
they want, then they stop supporting for the others.
And that is why we have particularly worked so that the
ecosystem restoration, environment water account, all of the
water quality, the storage, the infrastructure, all of that
moves simultaneously.
I think it is extraordinarily important that we do that, or
we end up spending money and not solving the problem. That is
one of my real worries.
So I appreciate all of your testimony.
Patrick Wright, let me just get--because there is some
questions here that I would like to give you in writing, but
one just to get in the record--and I do not know whether you
know the answers precisely.
What has the Bay-Delta Program expended to date?
Mr. Wright. Let me ask you to turn to the briefing book, if
you have it. If you will look on the table--table two in the
back under funding.
Senator Feinstein. Give me a page.
Mr. Wright. It is page--well, I guess it is an appendix, so
there is no page number. But it is table two.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Wright. It shows the year one funding of--among all of
the agencies, both those funds that were explicitly labeled
CALFED and those funds from various agencies such as the
CVPIA--CVPIA restoration fund that count towards meeting the
CALFED objectives across the board.
What this does not include is the roughly $220 million that
were labeled for CALFED previously through the previous
authorization.
Senator Feinstein. Can you give me a number? What has
CALFED spent to date?
Mr. Wright. I would add $220 million to the number here.
Senator Feinstein. Which number?
Mr. Wright. To the total of--let me just see if there is
a----
Senator Feinstein. State subtotal, $528 million?
Mr. Wright. Together with the Federal subtotal of $78
million would give you the grand total between the State and
Federal agencies for the first year.
Senator Feinstein. All right. I trust that. Thank you. All
right. We have that here then.
And so the total Federal contributions to date are, if this
is correct, $78 million?
Mr. Wright. Yes. Since the record of decision.
Senator Feinstein. $78 million?
Mr. Wright. Right.
Staff. Last year. I think that is the Federal contribution
for last year.
Senator Feinstein. Last year?
Mr. Wright. Right.
Senator Feinstein. Right. All right. And the total State
contributions?
Mr. Wright. Last year was $528 million.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. And what other contributions
have been made?
Mr. Wright. That is the sum total of all the State and
Federal funding. There were some--because there are matching
funds that go with a lot of these projects, we have a user
local subtotal here that shows $221 million coming in from
local communities, because a lot of these projects are cost-
shared.
Senator Feinstein. All right. And I would like to enter
this CALFED program into the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The program has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going to ask any other questions, but since we
have you all back here, can you go ahead on that assurance
language? Can you also take a look at the expedited review
language with my staff and if you have any recommendation, will
you let us know, say within 48 hours?
Mr. Wright. We will all be back here next week for the
House hearing, and we hope to have something by then.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. All right. Thank you.
And thank you very much, gentlemen. I truly appreciate your
being here today. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, August 10, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Attached for your review are the Association
of California Water Agencies' responses to questions posed July 30 by
Senators Nighthorse Campbell and Kyl, relevant to S. 976.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions on this
important piece of legislation, and encourage any members of the
Committee to contact me if I may provide further information.
Sincerely,
Stephen K. Hall,
Executive Director.
Responses to Questions From Senators Bingaman, Campbell and Kyl
Question 1. The Feinstein bill would authorize certain activities
outlined in an August 2000 record of decision (ROD) on the CALFED
program. However, why does this bill not appear to authorize
implementation of the ROD in its entirety?
Answer. ACWA believes S. 976 does have the effect of authorizing
the full CALFED Program, by referring to the ROD as its guiding
document in the legislation, directing federal agency participation in
a governance structure, and by authorizing the full range of program
elements within the Bay-Delta Program.
Question 2. How is this going to affect California getting their
share of Colorado River water down to the levels of the 4.4 plan which
former Secretary Babbitt set?
Answer. By modernizing California's water delivery infrastructure,
including water recycling projects throughout the state, S. 976 will
enhance the level of self-sufficiency of California's water supply. The
programs authorized in the bill will improve Delta conveyance, thereby
improving conditions for Delta export, and reducing the tensions
between fisheries and water supplies. Eased pressure on endangered
species imparts greater operational flexibility to California's entire
network of reservoirs, canals and pumping stations. Under this improved
scenario, meeting the obligations of the 4.4 plan will become far less
onerous and far more likely.
Question 3. It is proposed that this project will increase
California water by 3 million acre-feet. Where is this extra water
coming from and is there a chance part of this water will come from the
Colorado River?
Answer. California and its water agencies are committed to moving
forward with the 4.4 plan, and equally committed to living within its
4.4 million acre-foot Colorado River entitlement. The CALFED ROD
contains an important balance of water conservation, recycling,
ecosystem restoration and surface storage projects that together
increase system-wide flexibility and expand the state's available water
supply. None of the water supply gains contemplated by CALFED are to be
realized through increased diversions from the Colorado River. On the
contrary, CALFED will help to lessen them.
Question 4. If this is not enacted, and since California is still
obligated to meet its requirements in 4.4 plan, what will California
have to do to meet its future needs and how will this affect Colorado
water?
Answer. The prospect of failure for S. 976 and the resultant
consequences for CALFED are extremely severe. For years now,
California's water system has been visibly strained by the burdens of
growing population, increasing environmental mandates and looming
drought. CALFED was conceived and meticulously planned to remedy this
dangerous situation. If the state and federal agencies participating in
CALFED were to lose the work and momentum that have gone into the
program, there would be an enormous political and social cost. In the
short term, California's water community would descend into resumed
conflict and drawn out litigation. In the long term, healthy economic
growth and environmental progress will all be sacrificed just to meet
minimum demands for scarce water.
It is unclear what measures California will have to take in the
event of CALFED's failure, but meeting obligations under the 4.4 plan
would become more difficult. For these reasons, the federal government
must be an active partner in assuring success for CALFED.
Question 5. With the already existing authorized water projects not
being completely funded, like ALP in my home state of Colorado, will
CALFED get funding before these other already authorized projects?
Answer. CALFED first received federal funding in 1997 under the
California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act
of 1996, which authorized a total of $430 million in appropriations for
the program over three years. Actual appropriations totaled $220
million. CALFED received no federal funding in 2001, and has stayed
alive with funding from the state budget and two multi-billion dollar
California bond measures.
ACWA is keenly aware of the funding backlog for western water
projects, and has been a strong supporter of the ``Invest in the West''
campaign. This is a coalition effort among several western water
organizations, with the shared mission of securing the Bush
Administration's support for a five-year plan to increase the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget to $1 billion annually. With more resources
devoted to water development, projects like CALFED and Animus La Plata
can move forward to meet the growing water demands of the arid west.
ACWA is committed to working with the Administration and Congress to
increase the resources dedicated to western water management, such that
CALFED implementation does not adversely impact funding for other
projects in the west.
Question 6. What are the cost estimates of these CALFED related
projects?
Answer. According to figures from the CALFED Program, costs for the
first seven years of program implementation (aka Stage One) are
estimated at $8.6 billion.
Question 7. Who is supposed to pay for the projects?
Answer. These costs are to be shared in thirds among the state
government ($2.57 billion), federal government ($2.43 billion) and
California's local governments and assorted agencies ($2.56 billion).
Question 8. CALFED determined that beneficiaries should pay for new
surface storage projects. What water users have agreed to pay full cost
for water from these projects?
Answer. The intent of the CALFED Program is to share costs for
program implementation among all of the beneficiaries (the
``beneficiaries pay'' provision). It is contemplated that the benefits
will be identified as part of the detailed feasibility studies to be
completed as part of the pre-construction work. At that time it is
anticipated that the beneficiaries will agree to pay their part of the
costs or the projects will not go forward.
It is likely that the improvements contemplated by CALFED--similar
to federal infrastructure investments that preceded the program--will
provide substantial returns on the initial investment. For example, the
federal Central Valley Project today is the backbone of California's
$27 billion agricultural economy, providing half of the country's
fruits and vegetables and generating billions in business activity and
trade every year. Infrastructure investments of the type promised by
CALFED will ensure that California continues to be an engine of
economic growth for the west coast and beyond, and its restored
ecosystem a resource of national significance.
Question 9. What would the federal government's share of the cost
of these projects be?
Answer. See answer to question #7.
Question 10. Would that federal investment be repaid?
Answer. Yes. See answer to question #8.
Question 11. Is there a signed cost share agreement for these
projects?
Answer. There is currently a cost share agreement between the state
and federal governments. Other cost share agreements will be developed
specific to the individual projects.
Question 12. Why do these projects need an accelerated process for
authorization that is not conducted for any other water project?
Answer. This is a programmatic authorization, intended to authorize
the full program. There will be additional Congressional review of
individual projects, both in the authorizing and appropriating
committees, as well as by the full Congress.
In addition, the water supply projects described in S. 976 have
already undergone all required environmental review and documentation.
Unlike the ecosystem restoration objectives of CALFED, many of which
have already been attained, no water supply projects have yet moved
forward, despite the multi-year planning process behind the ROD and
growing water demands. The authorization process outlined in S. 976
will assure that with proper Congressional review, as additional
ecosystem projects are implemented, water supply projects also make
commensurate progress. This feature is intended to assure balanced
progress among CALFED's four co-equal objectives.
Responses to Questions From Senator Kyl
Question. Aren't the ecosystem projects going to be scheduled ahead
of water supply projects in the CALFED Program, and if so, what will
the incentive be for the environmental community to support water
supply projects once the ecosystem projects are completed?
Answer. The challenge of maintaining unified support for CALFED has
dogged the program since its inception, particularly on the issue of
expanded surface water storage. Based on past experience, ACWA and its
members are extremely concerned that the environmental community will
have no incentive to support water supply projects if the ecosystem
priorities of CALFED are allowed precedence over surface storage.
For this reason, ACWA has sought assurances that water supply
projects will be able to move forward in concert with CALFED's sizeable
environmental agenda. We will continue to work with Senator Feinstein
and the committee on developing appropriate linkage between ecosystem
and water supply priorities within this legislation, which authorizes
and directs the CALFED program.
Question. What will this do, good or bad, to California's plan to
live within a 4.4 million a/f annual Colorado River entitlement?
Answer. This legislation, by authorizing the modernization of
California's water delivery infrastructure, including water recycling
projects throughout the state, will enhance the level of self-
sufficiency of California's water supply. The linkages between
ecosystem projects and water supply in this legislation are intended to
prevent ecosystem priorities from moving forward while CALFED storage,
conveyance and other program elements become stalled. It is only
through balanced implementation of CALFED's plan that California and
the neighboring basin states can have confidence that California will
be able to live within its 4.4 million acre-feet entitlement.
______
State of California,
Resources Agency,
Sacramento, CA, August 20, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the State of California, I am
enclosing responses to twelve questions submitted by Senator Campbell
(R-CO) regarding Senate Bill 976 introduced by Senator Feinstein (D-
CA). These responses were requested in your letters dated July 30,
2001, sent to both Mr. Patrick Wright, Director of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program and me. Please consider this letter as the official response
from Director Wright.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If you have further
questions or are in need of additional detail, please contact me at
(916) 653-7310 or Director Wright at (916) 657-2666.
Yours sincerely,
Mary D. Nichols,
Secretary for Resources.
[Enclosure]
Responses to Questions From Senator Campbell
Question 1. The Feinstein bill would authorize certain activities
outlined in an August 2000 record of decision (ROD). However, why does
this bill not appear to authorize implementation of the ROD in its
entirety?
Answer. S. 976 does authorize continued participation by Federal
agencies in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and Program projects costing
less than $10 million.
S. 976 would require the Secretary of the Interior and other
Federal agency heads to participate in the administration of the Bay-
Delta Program. [Sec. 4 (c), ``Federal Role,'']. The Bay-Delta Program
is defined as programs, projects, and activities included in the Record
of Decision (Sec. 2 (4) (B), p. 2, II. 19-20). Further, S. 976 directs
the Federal agencies, subject to availability of funds; to carry out
all actions needed to implement ``Stage 1'' of the Bay-Delta Program.
(p. 12, II. 12-19). Stage 1 is defined as programs and projects planned
for the first seven years of the Bay-Delta Program, as specified in the
Record of Decision (Sec. 2 (19), p. 5, I. 24 through p. 6, I. 2).
Question 2. How is this going to affect California getting their
share of Colorado River water down to the levels of the 4.4 plan which
Babbitt set?
Answer. S. 976 would authorize implementation of the Bay-Delta
Program. Implementation of the Bay-Delta Program will involve
additional water conservation and water reclamation activities, thereby
reducing demand for Colorado River water supplies. These actions could
reduce overall demand for water supplies in southern California from
all sources, including the Colorado River. Additionally, the Bay-Delta
Program will improve the reliability and quality of water delivered to
southern California from the Delta. Improved quality of Bay-Delta
supplies will allow further expansion in water reclamation, with
attendant reductions in demand for water from all sources, again
including the Colorado River.
In addition to Bay-Delta Program actions, S. 976 proposes a grant
and loan program to help finance local agencies' water supply projects
that are not included within the Record of Decision. (Sec. 5, beginning
on page 33). We anticipate that some of these projects would increase
supplies available to southern California and thus reduce demand on
Colorado River water supplies.
Question 3. It is proposed that the CALFED program will increase
California's water supply by 3 million acre feet. Where is this extra
or new water coming from and is there a chance that part of this water
will come from the Colorado River?
Answer. About 2/3 of the projected additional supplies would come
from better use of existing, developed supplies. The remaining 1/3
would come from construction of additional storage facilities. None of
these additional water supplies will come from the Colorado River.
The Bay-Delta Program, if fully implemented, could develop up to
2.9 million acre-feet (MAF) of additional water supplies. Sources
include:
690 thousand acre-feet (TAF) from urban conservation
350 TAF from agricultural conservation
310 TAF from water reclamation
600 TAF from improvements in conveyance and water facility
operations
900 TAF from expansion in water storage capacity
All of these estimates are subject to further refinement as
project-specific studies are completed.
Water for these additional storage facilities will come from
streams and rivers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River watershed.
Increased storage capacity would be used to store water during high
flow periods for later release during times of need. The Bay-Delta
Program does not include any plans for a net increase in California's
allocation from the Colorado River.
Question 4. If this bill (S. 976) is not enacted, and since
California is still obligated to meets its requirements under the 4.4
plan, what will California have to do to meet its future needs and how
will this affect Colorado water?
Answer. S. 976 would authorize funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. Through implementation of ecosystem restoration programs and
water management actions, the Bay-Delta Program will improve the
reliability of existing water supplies exported from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta to California water-users. Southern California is home to
half of California's population, and it is more than 60% dependent on
imported water supplies. Much of that supply is from the Delta.
Clearly, continued and improved reliability of Northern California
exports is imperative.
If S. 976 is not enacted, Southern California water users run a
greater risk of reductions in water imported from Northern California.
Reductions in Northern California exports would negatively impact the
region's economy. More severely, the response might include adoption of
new programs to fallow hundreds of thousands of acres of highly
productive farmlands to provide water for urbanized Southern
California. With agriculture providing one of every ten jobs in
California, the adverse socioeconomic impacts of this scenario would be
widespread and destabilize California's already depressed agricultural
markets. Reduced Bay-Delta exports could destabilize the fragile
consensus among California's users of Colorado River water, making it
difficult to implement the Colorado River Water Use Plan and likely
leading to extensive litigation, which could result in a renewal of
interstate litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dissention among the seven Colorado River Basin states would hinder
their ability to effectively respond to new claims for use of River
water, such as those expressed in pending litigation over extra-
territorial application of the ESA to species in Mexico or those for
water for the Mexican delta.
We believe the best approach to avoid negative consequences is
Congressional authorization and funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. Without implementation of the Bay-Delta Program, through S.
976 or other appropriate legislation, it will be extremely difficult--
perhaps impossible--to ensure that California's 4.4 plan will be
implemented.
Question 5. With the already existing authorized water projects not
being completely funded, like ALP in my home state of Colorado, will
CALFED-get funded before other already authorized projects in other
states?
Answer. Decisions on Federal funding are the province of Congress.
We anticipate that funding for the Bay-Delta Program will be balanced
against other competing needs, both within the natural resources arena
and the wider arena of all Federal government obligations. We also
anticipate that Federal participation in the Program will be authorized
this year, and that Congress may wish to appropriate funds for CALFED-
related projects under existing authorities.
Question 6. What are the cost estimates of the CALFED related
projects?
Answer. CALFED agencies estimate the total costs for all Bay-Delta
Program Record of Decision Stage 1 actions to be about $8.6 billion.
Some projects would be constructed after Stage 1. Construction
costs for these projects would be in addition to the $8.6 billion
figure.
Water supply projects authorized by Sec. 5 of S. 976 would be
outside of the Record of Decision. We do not yet have an estimate of
costs for water supply projects that would be funded under the Water
Supply Program (Sec. 5 of S. 976). These costs would depend on the
number and scope of water supply projects that local agencies wish to
develop.
Question 7. Who will pay for these projects?
Answer. For projects covered by the Record of Decision, the CALFED
agencies have proposed a financing plan that includes about 1/3 of the
Program costs to be covered by the State of California (general
revenues and bond revenues), about 1/3 covered by the Federal
government, and about 1/3 covered by other sources, such as local
agency cost-shares and fees and charges on users of Delta resources.
The CALFED agencies have not yet developed recommendations for cost
allocations for specific projects.
For projects funded under the Water Supply Program (Sec. 5 of S.
976), it is anticipated that costs would be shared between the project
sponsors and the Federal government. It is possible that the State of
California would also participate in the funding of these projects. In
any case, cost share mandated by S. 976 limits the Federal portion to
50 percent.
Question 8. CALFED determined that beneficiaries should pay for new
surface storage projects. What water users have agreed to pay full cost
for the water from these projects?
Answer. The CALFED agencies have indicated, ``a fundamental
philosophy of the CALFED Program is that costs should, to the extent
possible, be paid by the beneficiaries of the program actions.'' (ROD,
p. 34.) This fundamental philosophy would apply to all elements of the
Program, not exclusively to surface storage projects. Regarding water
storage projects, the CALFED agencies have proposed that:
The financing strategy for individual storage projects will
vary due to the design and planned operations of each project.
Final cost allocations, however, will be made based on the
principle of ``beneficiaries pay.'' Generally, the planning and
feasibility stages of surface storage projects will be pursued
with State and Federal public funding. If a project is
determined to be feasible, a cost allocation plan will be
prepared as part of the design phase, preliminary cost
allocations secured before construction begins, and final cost
allocation agreements implemented prior to project completion.
(ROD, p. 47).
Therefore, we anticipate that, for any given surface storage
project, there will be multiple classes of beneficiaries, including
water users and the general public (for example, for environmental
restoration uses of the project). Cost allocations cannot be finalized
until additional studies of specific projects have been completed to
determine potential magnitude and allocation of benefits. Under these
circumstances, we do not expect any water user (or any other
beneficiary or beneficiary group) to agree to any specific cost
allocation at this time.
Question 9. What would the Federal government's share of the cost
of these projects be?
Answer. For projects included in the Record of Decision, CALFED
agencies have developed a preliminary financing plan that anticipates
the total Federal government share to be about 1/3 of the Bay-Delta
Program's total costs.
Water supply projects to be authorized in the Water Supply Program
(Sec. 5 of S. 976) would be outside the scope of the Record of
Decision. For these projects, the Federal share would not exceed 50
percent as mandated by S. 976. [Sec. 5(b)(4)(B), p. 37, II. 11-14.]
Question 10. Would that Federal investment be repaid?
Answer. Projects included in the Record of Decision may be
financed, in part, by loans from the Federal government to local
agencies or non-governmental organizations. We expect these loans would
be repaid from the borrower's revenues. Other forms of Federal
financial participation for Bay-Delta Program projects might include
grants (either in money or in-kind services) to fund all or part of the
costs of projects. Grants are usually not repaid.
Costs for new supplies for broad public benefit would be shared by
State and Federal governments and would not be repaid.
Funding proposed in the Water Supply Program would be for both
grants and loans [Sec. 5 (b)(4)]. S. 976 does not specify the
proportion of funding to be dedicated to each type of support.
Question 11. Is there a signed cost-share agreement for these
projects?
Answer. Cost-sharing agreements have been executed for some Record
of Decision components, including for example, ecosystem restoration
projects and groundwater storage projects.
For water storage projects included in the Record of Decision, some
agreements have been completed regarding the sharing of costs of
planning and feasibility studies for groundwater storage projects. For
reasons stated earlier, no cost-sharing agreements have been signed to
date for surface storage projects.
As projects get closer to implementation stage, cost-share
agreements will be completed and executed.
Question 12. Why do these projects need an accelerated process for
authorization that is not conducted for any other water project?
Answer. Accelerated authorization proposed in S. 976 could be an
additional tool to ensure the CALFED Bay-Delta Program maintains
balanced implementation throughout Stage 1. CALFED guidelines, already
in place, will also ensure a balanced implementation strategy. The
State of California believes that the storage projects specified in the
bill and labeled for accelerated authorization; that is, enlarging
Shasta Dam, enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and development of new
in-Delta storage have merit and deserve further investigation. These
projects will be considered during Stage 1. Upon completion of studies,
either with or without accelerated authorization, appropriate
documentation (including a description of the project, feasibility and
operational studies, final environmental impact studies, certification
by a statutorily-created public advisory group that the project is
consistent with the Record of Decision, a cost-benefit analysis, a
description of the project's benefits and beneficiaries, a cost
allocation plan for the project, and financing and repayment plans)
will be submitted to Congress.
Our expectation is that as program components become ready for
implementation, specific projects will be submitted for authorization
consideration. In other words, as program components are deemed ready,
each will be submitted for authorization.
______
Friant Water Users Authority,
Lindsay, CA, August 20, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: This letter is in response to the letter to
me from the Committee asking for responses to additional questions
posed in follow-up to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and
Power held on July 19, 2001 regarding the CalFed Program (S. 976) in
California.
Let me first note how much I appreciated being invited to testify
before the Subcommittee. This opportunity provided the Friant Water
Users Authority an excellent chance to clearly display our overall
support for the legislation currently being considered for the
authorization of the CalFed Program and to further explain the problems
we have with proposed language in the bill that would extend federal
``assurances'' of a water supply to a certain group of California water
users.
In response to the additional written questions raised by Senator
Campbell, let me offer that I have reviewed the responses provided to
you and Senator Campbell by Steve Hall on behalf of the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA) who also testified at the July 19th
hearing (response to questions dated August 10, 2001). I am in
concurrence with the responses provided by ACWA and do not have any
further comment to add.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Please feel free to
contact me if there are further questions regarding my testimony.
Very truly yours,
Richard M. Moss,
General Manager.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[Due to the enormous amount of materials received, only a
representative sample of statements follow. Additional
documents and statements have been retained in subcommittee
files.]
----------
Taxpayers for Common Sense,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Opposition to California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality
Enhancement Act of 2001 (S. 976)
Dear Senator Feinstein: Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes
the ``California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement
Act of 2001.'' Although we recognize that there is an important role
for the federal government in California water issues, we feel that
federal participation must be limited, targeted, and cost-effective in
order for the taxpayer to be served. S. 976 fails to meet this
standard.
We believe that S. 976 abandons CALFED's promise to approach
California water issues in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner
and instead returns to California's old habit of asking federal
taxpayers to pay for its expensive water projects. S. 976 moves away
from progress and innovative thinking in solving California's water
supply issues in many ways:
The Bill Comes With an Enormous Price Tag for Federal
Taxpayers. Earlier statements have estimated the cost of this
bill to be $3 billion (apparently based on estimates to
complete Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD) Stage 1
projects--FY 2000-07). However, S. 976 comes with a much
bigger, hidden price tag for federal taxpayers. The bill writes
a blank check by authorizing ``such sums as may be necessary to
pay for the Federal share'', and the federal share of building
three major projects, raising Shasta Dam, enlarging Los
Vaqueros Reservoir, and in-Delta storage, is 50%.
S. 976 Allows Fast-Tracking of Major Water Projects. This
bill effectively preauthorizes three major water projects and
prevents full Congressional review of potentially wasteful and
incredibly expensive California water storage projects. To be
authorized, studies for enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir,
raising Shasta Dam, and in-Delta storage need only be approved
by one of three authorizing committees, the House Committee on
Resources, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, cutting the rest of Congress out of the decision-making
process. The Secretary of the Interior submits reports for
construction projects to each of these committees. Unless all
three committees disapprove of the reports within 60 days of
submission, the three projects are authorized.
The Legislation Abandons ``Beneficiary Pays''. The bill
abandons the principle of ``beneficiary pays,'' a key
protection for the federal taxpayer in the CALFED ROD. By not
requiring the identification of beneficiaries prior to
authorizing new projects, S. 976 will perpetuate the wasteful
cycle of forcing federal taxpayers, rather than the users who
are directly benefiting from the water, to foot the bill for
costly water projects.
The Bill Provides Water Delivery Assurances for Central
Valley Water Contractors. S. 976 promises south-of-Delta
Central Valley agricultural water service contractors 65-70% of
their existing contract in normal years. This section catapults
many water users with junior rights to the front of the water
line to the detriment of users with more senior rights. Under
this section, the delivery of subsidized water to a small group
of Central Valley agricultural contractors becomes the highest
federal water priority in California. The bill also creates a
legal entitlement that will almost certainly be used by
contractors in existing and future litigation against the
federal taxpayer.
S. 976 Sticks Federal Taxpayers with the Bill for Water
Assessment Required by California State Law. Under California
State law, the California Water Plan Update, a comprehensive
assessment of California water supply needs, must be completed
every five years. The bill drags the federal taxpayer into a
process required and led by California, and then sticks the
federal taxpayer with half the bill for completing the
assessment and projects generated by the assessment.
Federal taxpayers should assist California in finding water
solutions, but California--and more importantly, water users--must take
the lead in implementing and funding these solutions. The ``California
Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001''
will launch a new taxpayer-subsidized, dam-building era for water
users. Taxpayers for Common Sense will work to find solutions, but, we
believe S. 976, unfortunately, is more of a problem than a solution.
We would be happy to further discuss this legislation with you.
Please contact me at (202) 546-8500 x130 or [email protected] with
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Aileen D. Roder,
California Water Project Coordinator.
______
Natural Resources Defense Council,
San Francisco, CA, July 18, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: The New Draft CALFED Reauthorization Bill (July 18, 2001 Draft)
Dear Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer: We have received the new
draft bill that Senator Feinstein just released this afternoon in
preparation for tomorrow's hearing, and we have been asked for our
initial analysis. As you know, NRDC has many issues of concern with S.
976, the Senator's current bill, many of which have been addressed in
previous letters and comments. This letter focuses only on a few key
issues, including the authorization for new construction actions and
the attempt to create a federal statutory directive to increase water
deliveries to south of Delta agricultural contractors, both of which
are provoking opposition among many stakeholders in the CALFED process.
Although we recognize that this draft responds to a number of concerns
that were raised about previous drafts, many of the core problems
remain.
The new July 18 draft includes revised language on the so-called
``west side assurances,'' a revised procedure for congressional review
of new surface storage, and a blanket authorization for ``all actions
necessary'' to carry out Stage 1 activities in the ROD. As is described
more fully below and in our previous letters, NRDC cannot support this
new version of the legislation and we urge you to amend it to restore
the balance and consensus foundation of the CALFED ROD. Our concerns
include the following:
Eliminates Clean Water Act Review: The draft bill would
seriously undermine protections for clean water and wetlands by
allowing new and expanded dams to proceed without Clean Water
Act permits. Clean Water Act permits are normally required for
the construction and expansion of surface storage, because dams
destroy wetlands and have other harmful effects on water
quality. Rather than requiring the new projects to comply fully
with the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements, the bill's
authorization language would effect an end-run around these
requirements, allowing the new dams to proceed without any
Clean Water Act permit. There is no valid policy justification
for allowing large new dams to proceed without receiving a
Clean Water Act permit. There also is no valid policy
justification for failing to offer wetlands the highest
protections under the law--particularly in California, which
has already lost more than 90 percent of its wetlands, more
than any other state.
Eliminates Essential Congressional Review: The draft bill
would severely curtail congressional review of projects seeking
authorizations. For example, the draft would not require any
committee hearings or vote. Given the long history of damaging
water projects, limiting congressional review is unacceptable.
If approved, this language could establish a damaging new
national precedent.
Encourages Litigation and Threatens Environmental
Protections: The bill is virtually certain to trigger new
litigation by south-of-Delta irrigation interests as to the
adequacy of their taxpayer-subsidized water deliveries. It does
so by directing the federal government to increase water
deliveries to those irrigation interests by at least 15 percent
or up to 65-70 percent of their existing contract. If
deliveries in the future fall short of this new requirement for
any reason including preceding dry years or the need to reserve
some water to protect water quality or the environment--these
irrigation interests will be almost certain to sue to increase
their deliveries. This language is nearly certain to trigger
litigation to roll back current legal requirements to protect
the environment on the Trinity River, the Delta and Central
Valley wetlands. It is also likely to lead to an outrageous
legal claim that taxpayers must purchase water, at perhaps $160
per acre-foot and sell that water to CVP contractors at a
fraction of that price. Such a legal requirement would
represent a new right that would go far beyond the ROD and the
capacity of the Central Valley Project. It would also represent
disastrous public policy. The bill language about ``no effect
on contracts or law,'' while helpful in some respects, may fail
to protect against such lawsuits, for two independent reasons.
First, it fails to provide that the requirements in the bill
itself do not create new rights to water deliveries for water
users. Second, while it provides that nothing in this portion
of the bill affects any ``right'' under federal or state law,
it fails to provide that nothing in this portion of the bill
affects any existing requirement under federal or state law.
Authorizes Additional Controversial Projects: The separate
authorization for the Bay-Delta Program construction actions in
Section 4 of the bill is sweeping and must be considered
separately from the procedures created on the three specific
storage projects discussed later in the bill. Section 4 directs
the Secretary to ``carry out all actions necessary to implement
stage 1'' including various preconstruction and construction
activities, without any language of limitation or pre-
conditions. The list of actions discussed in the ROD that may
be eligible under this part of the bill is extensive. This list
could include Sites Reservoir, as well as a screened Delta
diversion, which could become the beginning of a Peripheral
Canal. Moreover, these actions could be converted by this
language into Federal projects, with all the CVP repayment
obligations (and subsidies) that might entail, even if CALFED
has not decided if there should be any federal role in these
projects.
We have had little time to review this new draft. However, we
wanted to provide these initial comments as rapidly as possible. In
light of these numerous problems, we believe this new draft cannot be
supported as written.
Nevertheless, despite our concerns about certain aspects of the
proposed bill, we firmly support the need for a consensus of interests
in support of CALFED reauthorization that would make it possible to
obtain CALFED funding. Unfortunately, this new draft fails to solve the
many problems with S. 976 as introduced and will not achieve the needed
consensus. We therefore urge you to work for alternate approaches that
will achieve truly consensus-based authorization legislation.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Barry Nelson,
Senior Policy Analyst.
Hamilton Candee,
Senior Attorney.
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, July 19, 2001.
Dear California Congressional Delegation: California business,
labor and water leaders strongly support bipartisan federal legislation
needed this year to authorize the crucial CALFED Bay-Delta
implementation plan. We urge you to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1985
and to work with us in securing its passage.
California is growing and will quickly outpace the modest
investments made to its water infrastructure over the past 30 years. As
the energy crisis has shown, there is a tremendous price to pay for
being caught without adequate resources. There is broad agreement among
our state's elected and opinion leaders that water will be the next
crisis for California unless steps are taken now.
With support from business, labor and water interests, California
has committed substantial funding to begin that investment through the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Today, federal action in the form of S. 976
sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein and H.R. 1985, by Congressman Ken
Calvert, is needed to keep the effort on track and prevent a water
supply crisis in California's near future.
Without an adequate water supply our environment and economy will
be severely impacted. The Bay-Delta Program is the largest and most
comprehensive environmental restoration project in our state's history.
At the same time, the plan outlines needed improvements to water supply
reliability and quality in the Bay-Delta--vital to public health and
our quality of life.
Whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable water supply, we
can't afford to neglect our infrastructure. California jobs depend on
it.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered in the
Bay-Delta Plan. S. 976 and H.R. 1985 will help make that plan a
reality.
Sincerely,
Action on Water Signatories.
______
Geothermal Energy Association,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: We appreciate the interest of the Senate
Energy Committee in expanding renewable energy production, and would
request that this letter on behalf of the members of the Geothermal
Energy Association be included in the record of the Committee's
hearings of July 19th. A full list of GEA's members is attached.
Geothermal energy as making a substantial contribution to our
energy needs, and has the potential to do much more. Nearly 2,800
megawatts of geothermal power, producing 14-17 billion kilowatt-hours
per year of electricity are in operation. High temperature geothermal
resources supply about 6% of the electricity in California, 10% of the
power in Northern Nevada, about 25% of the electricity for the Island
of Hawaii, and significant power in Utah. Lower temperature resources
provide substantial heat and energy for schools, homes and businesses
throughout the West.
Beyond its energy contribution, geothermal production contributes
directly to state and local economies and to the national Treasury. To
date, geothermal electricity producers have paid over $600 million in
rentals, bonus bids and royalties to the federal government. Moreover,
according to an analysis performed by Princeton Economic Research, it
would be reasonable to estimate that the geothermal industry has paid
nearly 6 times that amount in federal income tax, for a combined total
of over $4 billion.\1\ If the economic multiplier effects were
considered, the total benefits of geothermal energy to the local and
national economy would be substantially greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Princeton Economic Research, Inc., Review of Federal Geothermal
Royalties and Taxes, December 15, 1998. (Figures expressed in 1998
dollars.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the western states, from Texas to Washington, could see a
dramatic expansion of geothermal energy use, including thousands of new
megawatts of geothermal electric capacity, with proper incentives,
expedited regulatory processing, and a strong research program to
enhance technology.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES: EXTENDING THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT TO INCLUDE
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
The most important measure that the Congress could take to spur the
development of new geothermal electricity capacity would be the
inclusion of geothermal energy in the list of eligible technologies to
receive a 1.5-cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit under
Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code. Extension of the production
tax credit to new geothermal energy facilities would result in
significant expansion of private sector investment in new geothermal
power in the West.
GEA also supports an inclusion of ``incremental'' production in the
list of eligible technologies. Upgrading and refurbishing older
geothermal power plants with higher efficiency turbines and other new
technology can result in significant near-term additional generation.
The new power production achieved should receive the tax credit.
Extension of the Production Tax Credit to include geothermal energy
is proposed in S. 596, the Energy Security Tax Incentive Act of 2001
sponsored by Senator Bingaman, S. 389, the National Energy Security Act
of 2001 sponsored by Senator Murkowski and S. 249 the Renewable Energy
Development Incentives Act sponsored by Senator Reid.
Expansion of Section 45 to include geothermal energy would help
encourage investors to choose taking the risk of investing in new
geothermal facilities. Geothermal power plants are capital intensive,
costing several times more than a comparable natural gas power plant.
Also, geothermal power plants require a significant up-front investment
of time and money to define the geothermal resource, an investment that
has been estimated to be as much as 40% of the cost of a new ``green
field'' geothermal facility. Extension of the production tax credit to
geothermal energy would help overcome these barriers and promote
geothermal energy as a cost effective means to address clean air and
climate concerns while providing reliable power to our homes and
industry.
RESOURCE POTENTIAL, REGULATORY AND PUBLIC LANDS ISSUES
What is the future potential for geothermal energy in the West?
What would the benefits of developing these resources be? These are
difficult questions to answer, in part because the federal efforts of
the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy to define the
U.S. resource base have not been funded for many years. To be
reasonably accurate, for geothermal energy a ``resource assessment''
would involve not only analysis but also surface exploration, selected
drilling and updated modeling. While individual companies have
conducted some exploration, much of that data is proprietary and since
the collapse of power markets in the early 90's there has been little
interest in high-risk investment.
Earlier this year, the USGS and DOE testified on these issues
before the House Resources Subcommittee on Energy. They restated their
1978 estimate of geothermal potential in the West, over 22,000 MW,
which is summarized by state in the attached table. However, the USES
also indicated that this estimate is based upon assessment work done
largely in the late 1960s and that there have been significant changes
in our understanding of geothermal resources since then. Also, as you
may notice from examining the attached table, many of the Western
states with geothermal potential were never fully assessed by the USGS
in its decades old analysis. An obvious conclusion is that a new
geothermal resource assessment is needed, if not badly overdue.
But, assuming that half of the estimated geothermal potential could
be brought on line, the results would be of significant benefit to the
West. A Princeton Economic Research study defines some of the direct
economic benefits. The cumulative federal royalties from the new
geothermal plants would reach over $7 billion by 2050, and estimated
income tax revenues would exceed $52 billion in nominal dollars.\2\ For
just royalties, alone, that would mean an investment of $3.5 billion in
schools and local government facilities in the Western states through
their share of federal royalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Princeton Energy Research Inc., Op, Cit., volume I, page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether and when the economic benefits of further geothermal
development are realized will greatly depend upon the action, or
inaction, of the federal land management agencies. Today, about 75% of
U.S. geothermal electricity production takes place on Federal public
lands because that is where most of the resource is located. We expect
that the resources yet to be developed also will be predominantly
located on public lands. While the previous Administration espoused
development of more geothermal resources in the West through its
``GeoPowering the West'' initiative, too little was done to address the
underlying problems that prevent investment in geothermal projects on
public lands.
New geothermal development requires the timely and reasonable
administration of federal leasing, permitting, and environmental
reviews by public land management agencies. Unfortunately, the recent
past has been one characterized by bureaucratic delay and indecision by
public land agencies; as a result, there has been a rapid decline in
new geothermal energy development. Tens of thousands of acres of
geothermal leases have been applied for in the West, but no action has
been taken by federal agencies for years. Permit applications that
should have taken days or weeks have taken months or years to process.
Environmental reviews have been unnecessarily extensive, costly, and
repetitive; and in areas where an EIS has been completed, decisions by
federal agencies have been subject to years of delay and appeal.
It is important that the Committee recognize that there are serious
problems facing geothermal energy development on the public lands. In
many ways, the problems facing natural gas development are mirrored for
geothermal development, if not exacerbated by geothermal energy's
higher risk and much higher capital costs.
To mitigate these extraordinary delays and costs, we would
encourage the federal land management and regulatory agencies to:
Ensure that the processing of needed, clean energy projects
on public lands are handled with a sense of urgency and
priority. It is vital that bureaucratic delays be reduced from
years to months if not weeks.
Eliminate repetition and duplication in the process. One of
the most recent projects to go through the federal process was
held up repeatedly while the same issues were examined over and
over again by different federal and state agencies.
Strike a more responsible balance between our need for new,
clean energy supplies and other uses and values for the public
lands.
Ensure reasonable access to public lands, including military
lands, and lease terms that reflect the public interest in
developing geothermal energy resources.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The third priority for ensuring the expanded use of geothermal
energy is having a strong research program at the Department of Energy.
The DOE geothermal energy research program has been seriously
underfunded for years. DOE's own geothermal energy Strategic Plan calls
for a near-term annual budget level of $50-$60 million. This budget
level would be consistent with recommendations made by the President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in its 1997
report. Critical technical needs include the development of advanced
drilling, exploration and reservoir sensing, energy conversion and
metals recovery, and enhanced reclaimed water injection. (By
comparison, Japan is spending $150 million on geothermal energy
research and development).
A recent independent review by the National Research Council,
Renewable Power Pathways, generally agrees with this conclusion. The
NRC panel states:
In light of the significant advantages of geothermal energy
as a resource for power generation, it may be undervalued in
DOE's renewable energy portfolio. Significant amounts of high-
grade resources are available, and geothermal power
technologies can operate in a variety of duty cycles (from base
load to peak load conditions). . . . In addition, the United
States has taken the lead in successful commercial
demonstrations of geothermal energy for generating electricity
and heat at several sites and is the current technology leader
in the world among very active competitors in Europe and Japan.
(Renewable Power Pathways, page 53.)
While DOE's geothermal research program has been undergoing
fundamental change, we believe it is moving in a positive direction.
However, it needs adequate funds to achieve its objectives and ensure
the continued advance of geothermal technology.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the interest of the Senate Energy Committee in
expanding the use of geothermal energy in the West. There are
significant untapped geothermal resources throughout the West, and we
welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to develop the laws
and policies that will encourage their greater use.
Sincerely,
Karl Gawell,
Executive Director.
______
Save The Bay Sierra Club League of Conservation
Voters California League of Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council American Rivers
Trout Unlimited Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen
Association League of Woman Voters of California
Clean Water Action Golden Gate Audubon Society The
Bay Institute Delta Keeper Golden Gate Fishermen's
Association Save The American River Association
Environmental Water Caucus California Trout Northern
California Association of River Guides California
Sportsfishing Protection Alliance Planning and Conservation
League Community Water Rights Project Friends of the
River Endangered Habitat League Mono Lake Committee
Salmonid Restoration Federation Sacramento River
Preservation Trust Butte Environmental Council Sierra
Nevada Alliance CLEAN South Bay Northcoast
Environmental Center Friends of the Trinity River San
Francisco Chapter of Surfrider Foundation
July 12, 2001.
Re: Opposition to S. 976 as Introduced; Request to Support Boxer
Amendments
Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations support the CALFED plan
and its call for a restored San Francisco Bay and Delta Estuary, as
well as improved water supply reliability and quality for cities and
farms. For this reason, we urge you to oppose S. 976 as introduced, the
California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act.
We also urge you to support Senator Boxer's proposed amendments.
In its current form, S. 976 would substantially undermine the
CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) agreed to by 16 federal and state
agencies. If enacted, this bill is likely to continue the debilitating
water wars of the last three decades and further decimate California's
environment and fishing industry. Major problems with S. 976 in its
current form include:
``Pre-approval'' process for major new water development
facilities. The bill would bypass the usual congressional
review and authorization process for certain water projects and
deem them ``approved'' for purposes of receiving federal
appropriations once studies are completed, regardless of the
results of these studies, unless all of the relevant committees
disapprove the reports within 60 days--a near impossibility
given the Congressional calendar.
No ``beneficiary pays'' requirement for pre-approved water
protects. The bill ignores CALFED's requirement that water user
beneficiaries pay for new facilities and would continue the
failed policy of subsidizing scarce water, thus encouraging
inefficient and environmentally harmful use of that water.
Extraordinary legislative amendment of contracts giving new
guarantees to agribusiness out of water needed for endangered
salmon. The bill would give agribusiness a guarantee of 65-70%
of their current contract maximums--a benefit not provided by
those contracts which recognize that, as the junior users on
the system, these contractors are likely to receive less than
the maximum amount. This new water right would come at the
direct expense of the ecosystem and other water users. This
provision is likely to:
Trump environmental protections for endangered fish and
wildlife.
Give CVP contractors ``first call'' on CALFED funding for
storage and other water supply reliability tools.
Create a new legal entitlement encouraging further
litigation.
Imbalance in water development and ecosystem restoration
benefits. S. 976 focuses primarily on water development and
fails to fully implement the restoration, conservation and
water quality elements of the CALFED ROD. It also contains an
entirely new water supply program--over and above the
considerable development authorized as part of the CALFED
program. However, there is no parallel program addressing
critical ecosystem problems beyond CALFED. Other key omissions
include:
No dedicated funding for restoration, in particular the $35
million annual water user fee called for in the CALFED ROD.
No guarantee for environmental water of at least 100,000 AF
per year as called for in the CALFED ROD.
No requirement to implement the CALFED agricultural and urban
water conservation programs.
No requirement to establish a comprehensive drinking water
policy as called for in the CALFED ROD.
Senator Boxer has introduced amendments addressing two of these
issues. The first would eliminate the guarantee of new water to south
of Delta contractors and limit litigation. While we believe the better
course would be to strike the south of Delta assurances language
entirely, the Boxer amendment is a substantial improvement over S. 976.
The second amendment would eliminate the pre-authorization language
for new water development in S. 976, and establish a ``beneficiary
pays'' requirement for water projects consistent with the CALFED plan.
We strongly support this amendment. Other changes are necessary to
ensure that this bill fulfills CALFED's promise, but these amendments
are key improvements.
There is a need to authorize the CALFED program. However, in its
current form, S. 976 strays far from the agreement reached after six
years of study and negotiation. Critically, it is likely to undermine
the restoration of the San Francisco Bay and Delta Estuary that CALFED
was supposed to achieve. We urge you to oppose S. 976 as currently
drafted and to support Senator Boxer's amendments. We understand that
discussions are underway that may modify S. 976, and we look forward to
productively engaging in those conversations. Thank you for your
consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Koehler, Save The Bay; Carl Zichella,
Sierra Club; Betsy Loyless, League of
Conservation Voters; Sarah Rose, California
League of Conservation Voters; Barry
Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council;
S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, American Rivers;
Steve Malloch, Trout Unlimited; Zeke
Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Association; Roberta Borgonovo,
League of Woman Voters of California;
Marguerite Young, Clean Water Action;
Arthur Feinstein, Golden Gate Audubon
Society; Gary Bobker, The Bay Institute;
Bill Jennings, Delta Keeper; Roger Thomas,
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association; Felix
Smith, Save The American River Association;
Jean Auer, Environmental Water Caucus; Nick
Di Croce, California Trout; Craig Bell,
Northern California Association of River
Guides; Jim Crenshaw, California
Sportsfishing Protection Alliance; Gerald
H. Meral, Planning and Conservation League;
Michael Warburton, Community Water Rights
Project; Elizabeth Reifsnider, Friends of
the River; Dan Silver, Endangered Habitat
League; Frances Spivy-Weber, Mono Lake
Committee; Craig Bell, Salmonid Restoration
Federation; John Merz, Sacramento River
Preservation Trust; Lynn Barris, Butte
Environmental Council; Laurel Ames, Sierra
Nevada Alliance; Trish Mulvey, CLEAN South
Bay; Tim McKay, Northcoast Environmental
Center; Byron Leydecker, Friends of the
Trinity River; Mike Paquet, San Francisco
Chapter of Surfrider Foundation.
California Water Projects Since 1996
1. American River Watershed (Flood control)
2. Humboldt Harbor and Bay (Navigation)
3. Marin County Shoreline (Restoration)
4. Port of Long Beach (Deepening)
5. San Lorenzo River (Flood control)
6. San Lorenzo River (Restoration)
7. Santa Barbara Harbor (Navigation)
8. Santa Monica Breakwater (Navigation)
9. Oakland Harbor (Navigation)
10. Oakland Harbor (Deepening)
11. San Luis Rey River (Flood protection)
12. Folsom Dam Modification (Flood protection)
13. South Sacramento County Streams (Flood protection)
14. Yuba River Basin (Flood protection)
15. Los Angeles Harbor (Navigation)
16. Murrieta Creek (Flood protection)
17. Pine Flat Dam (Flood protection)
18. Santa Barbara Streams (Restoration)
19. Upper Newport Bay (Navigation)
20. Whitewater River Basin (Restoration)
21. Upper Guadalupe River (Flood protection)
------
City of Sacramento,
Sacramento, CA, April 17, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the City of Sacramento (City),
the County of Sacramento (County) and the East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD), we want to express appreciation for your unwavering
leadership in the United States Senate in the water resources area. A
strong approach is needed to ensure that California has the tools and
resources to manage California's water resources in a manner that will
protect our environmental and economic prosperity into the future. We
support the approach set forth in your April 5th draft federal
authorization and funding measure, entitled the ``California Water
Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001.''
The City, County and EBMUD greatly appreciate the work that you and
your staff have undertaken over the past six years to help resolve the
water conflicts in California. Your current draft measure is the most
recent of many contributions to help resolve these water conflicts in a
manner that would provide benefit to all of the various interests. We
strongly endorse the inclusion of the Freeport Regional Project in your
draft measure, as it is vital to each of our interests and would serve
to benefit multiple regions in the State.
The City, County and EBMUD intend to work with all of the other
stakeholder interests in California to help create the needed
``critical mass'' of support for this measure. If California's
interests cannot work for the common good, we may find ourselves
without the national political support that will be needed to secure
enactment of your important measure. If California water interests are
unable to work together for a common solution, we may not find another
opportunity for such a measure for some time.
As you full well know, we in California (including those of us in
the East Bay and Sacramento regions) cannot afford to delay
implementing a solution that addresses our mutual water supply needs in
an environmentally responsible manner. The City, County and EBMUD look
forward to the introduction of your measure and will work closely with
you and the other stakeholder interests to advance this important
measure through Congress.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Robert Thomas,
City Manager.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Terry Schutten,
County Executive.
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Dennis M. Diemer,
General Manager.
______
The Delta Wetlands Project,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the Delta Wetlands
Partnership, I would like to express our thanks and support for your
recent efforts on legislation to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. In particular, Delta Wetlands believes that the legislation
that you released on April 6, 2001 represents a significant first step
in the effort to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and we urge
you to introduce this bill.
There is a real need for continued improvement in the management of
California's water system both with respect to increased protections
for the environment as well as the development of new water supplies to
serve California's future needs. One element of that program must be
new water storage projects in California. The California Department of
Water Resources estimates that, in the next twenty years, without
additional water projects, California's water demand will exceed supply
by up to 26% in drought years. In order to address this increasing
shortfall, the CALFFD Bay-Delta Program identifies several water
storage projects (including the potential acquisition or lease of the
Delta Wetlands Project) and sets an ambitious schedule for
implementation that requires that the CALFED agencies continue a high
level of effort on the development and implementation of the storage
elements. Thus, the urgency of reauthorizing CALFED this year not only
lies in Congressional approval of the proposed measures in the Record
of Decision but also in the need to continue authorization and funding
of the development of these water storage projects so that they can be
implemented on a timely basis.
The Delta Wetlands Project can provide immediate water supply,
water management and environmental benefits under the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. The Project has the capability of being implemented in the
next three to five years and is in the process of receiving final state
and federal permits required for construction and implementation of the
project. At the same time, the Delta Wetlands Project also will create
9,000 acres of new wetlands habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay
Delta and be implemented with a series of fishery, habitat and water
quality protection measures.
Delta Wetlands appreciates the work that you and your staff, Andy
Moran and Warren Weinstein, have done in developing the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program reauthorization legislation. Moreover, we fully support
your efforts in this regard and look forward to working with you to
ensure that reauthorization is achieved in 2001.
Sincerely,
James L. Easton,
General Manager.
______
Santa Clara ValleyWater District,
San Jose, CA, April 23, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Subject: California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Santa Clara Valley Water District
supports your draft legislation to re-authorize the CALFED program and
to provide funding for the enhancement of the water supply and
ecosystem in the State of California. We appreciate very much your
continued leadership and interest in addressing the State's critical
water supply, water quality and ecosystem needs. We concur with your
assessment that California's electricity crisis is a stark lesson of
failure to plan ahead to meet our growing needs. This lesson should not
be repeated with water--our life-blood.
I am pleased to report that my Board of Directors voted to support
the introduction of your draft legislation and to continue our dialogue
with you and your staff as the bill language gets developed and
refined. We are delighted to see that a number of projects and programs
critical to Santa Clara County's water supply, water quality and
environmental needs are included in the legislation. We would like to
continue to work with you and your staff to ensure that all the
interests of the stakeholders are addressed and that no particular
interest is advanced to the detriment of others.
Thank you again for providing the opportunity to work with you on
this important legislation that will provide statewide benefits for
many years to come. We look forward to our continuing dialogue with you
in the Senate and additional opportunities in the House when similar
efforts begin.
Sincerely,
Stanley M. Williams,
Chief Executive Officer.
______
Western Municipal Water District,
Riverside, CA, April 24, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Building, Washington DC.
Support for Calfed Re-Authorization Legislation
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing to express our support for
your bill to re-authorize the CALFED program and to encourage you to
proceed with this critical legislation.
The Western Municipal Water District is a public agency that
provides water supply, wastewater disposal, and water resource
management to one-half million people within a 510 square mile area of
western Riverside County. We were formed by public vote in 1954 to
bring imported water supplies to this area. These supplies are
purchased from the Metropolitan Water District and are mostly imported
from Northern California via the State Water Project.
Not only does Western import water, but, in our water resource
management role, we work to improve and manage our local resources,
with the goal of lessening our dependence on imported supplies. The
CalFed process can help us succeed in this effort.
A critical component of your proposed legislation is the Southern
California Integrated Watershed Program, which would assist in
developing significant new water supply and storage capabilities in
Southern California, reduce the need to import water supplies, and
provide significant environmental and water supply benefits for the
Colorado River Basin States, for the San Francisco Bay Delta region,
and for California as a whole.
We would like to urge your efforts with this critical legislation
that will help us better manage our limited water supplies throughout
the state.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Harriger,
General Manager.
______
San Diego County Water Authority,
San Diego, CA, April 24, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001
Dear Senator Feinstein: The San Diego County Water Authority
supports your efforts to enact the California Water Supply and
Ecosystem Enhancements Act of 2001 that would continue implementation
of the CALFED Bay Delta program. On behalf of the nearly 3 million San
Diego County residents who rely on the Authority for a safe and
reliable water supply, we look forward to actively participating in a
process that ensures the success of this essential measure and the
CALFED program.
The 1987-92 drought proved that Southern California could no longer
afford delaying a solution that addresses the state's mutual water
supply needs. Your legislation authorizes a comprehensive water supply
program that will help to bring water demands and supplies into
balance. Your legislation also addresses key CALFED implementation
issues in the areas of water quality, ecosystem restoration, storage
and conveyance improvement, and conservation and reclamation. It
contains appropriate requirements to use credible and objective science
and reporting and performance milestones.
We applaud your personal commitment to achieve a balanced solution
that protects the essential resources of California. Your efforts and
this legislation will result in substantial benefits to the entire
state. The Authority looks forward to working with you and Congressman
Ken Calvert to find common ground on these important issues. Thank you
for your leadership in authoring legislation that will enhance
California's environmental restoration, water quality, and water
supply.
Sincerely,
Maureen A. Stapleton,
General Manager.
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, April 26, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2001
inviting responses to your draft CALFED Authorization Legislation. We
commend you for your leadership on this issue and continue to believe
that you are one of only a handful of political leaders who can bring
California's diverse interests together on this important issue. We
support the introduction of your legislation and believe it could break
the longstanding gridlock that has plagued California water policy.
We are particularly heartened by the fact that your legislation
recognizes the need to invest in our water infrastructure in order to
avert a water supply crisis similar to the energy crisis California is
now experiencing. Your legislation authorizes specific groundwater and
surface storage projects, improvements to water conveyance, a rigorous
program to improve scientific review, improved water project
operational flexibility and demand management measures, all of which
will be needed to assure that the water supply and water quality needs
of the state will be met. Further, the study and analysis of additional
storage and conveyance improvements will help assure that we meet
California's future as well as its immediate water needs.
As you know, Congressman Calvert, the chair of the House Water and
Power Subcommittee has indicated his intention to introduce similar
legislation. We look forward to working with you and Congressman
Calvert in developing legislative proposals in the House and the Senate
that are compatible and which provide the kind of clear guidance to
federal agencies that we believe is necessary for the CALFED
implementation plan to be successfully implemented.
Toward that end we have attached a set of principles that ACWA
adopted in December of last year. We will use these principles as our
guide to assure that the final legislative package authorizes the
CalFed implementation plan and the regulatory regime under which it
operates in a way that assures a balance among environmental, water
supply and water quality needs.
Thank you again for your strong and decisive leadership and for
your willingness to work with ACWA and its members in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Stephen K. Hall,
Executive Director.
______
San Francisco Bay Area Water Users Association,
San Mateo, CA, April 26, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: CALFED Legislation; Support
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Bay Area Water Users Association
(Association) is pleased to support your draft CALFED legislation, the
California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001. The
Association represents 29 cities, water districts and other agencies in
the San Francisco Bay Area. Association members provide water to 1.7
million people, plus business and institutional customers in Alameda,
Santa Clara, and San Mateo County.
This legislation is important to their customers because all of our
member agencies purchase water from the City and County of San
Francisco and many also rely upon other sources of water, including
both the State and federal water projects. The bill would authorize
significant federal commitments to protecting California's ecosystem in
conjunction with improving the water supply reliability situation
within California through increases in water use efficiency and water
storage.
Your efforts to bring forward balanced CALFED authorization and
appropriation legislation to Congress this year that addresses
ecosystem restoration, water supply enhancement, and water supply
reliability should be applauded and supported. We commend you for the
continued leadership that you bring to resolving water supply and
ecosystem issues in California, especially those related to the Bay
Delta system.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your staff on
this important legislation. We look forward to its swift passage and
implementation. Please call me if we can be of any further assistance
to you.
Very Sincerely,
Arthur R. Jensen,
General Manager.
______
North Coast County Water District,
Pacifica, CA, April 27, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: CALFED Legislation; Support
The Board of the North Coast County Water District is pleased to
support your draft CALFED legislation, the California Water Supply and
Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001. Passage of this legislation is
critical to the future of our great State of California.
The North Coast County Water District applauds your efforts to
bring forward balanced CALFED authorization and appropriation
legislation to Congress this year. The legislation would provide an
opportunity to implement various water development projects that would
not be considered without your legislation.
The residents of Pacifica are expecting the District to meet their
present and future water needs. Without assistance at the Federal level
the District will be hard pressed to meet those water needs.
Please encourage your fellow Senators to support your efforts on
this legislation. The state should not miss this opportunity to build
the foundation necessary to support California's water needs into the
future. Let us heed the warning signs that were missed by the power
industry. The District looks forward to swift passage and
implementation of your legislation.
Respectfully,
Christine L. Hawkins
President of the Board.
______
City of Millbrae,
Millbrae, CA, April 27, 2001.
Re: Support for CALFED Legislation
Dear Senator Feinstein: The City of Millbrae is pleased to support
your draft CALFED legislation, the California Water Supply and
Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001. The City provides water to
businesses and 21,394 residential customers.
This legislation is important to our customers because we purchase
100% of our water from the City and County of San Francisco. The bill
would authorize significant federal commitments to protecting
California's ecosystem in conjunction with improving the water supply
reliability situation within California through increases in water use
efficiency and water storage.
Your efforts to bring forward balanced CALFED authorization and
appropriation legislation to Congress this year that addresses
ecosystem restoration, water supply enhancement, and water supply
reliability should be applauded and supported. We commend you for the
continued leadership that you bring to resolving water supply and
ecosystem issues in California, especially those related to the Bay
Delta system.
We look forward to the passage and implementation of this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
L.M. Sandrini,
Director of Public Works.
______
San Gabriel Valley,
Irwindale, CA, June 28, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building, Washington DC.
Re: S. 976 (Feinstein)--Support
Dear Senator Feinstein: The San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
(SGVEP) extends its support to S. 976. The Partnership is a coalition
of public and private sectors working to sustain and grow the economic
vitality of the Valley. Our goal is to attract more businesses, provide
more jobs and create a ``business-friendly'' region. Your bill, ``The
California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of
2001,'' authorizes $3 billion to assist in the restoration of
California's endangered water ecosystem and enhance California's water
supply, reliability and quality of life for all interest.
In addition, SGVEP is the lead organization in the effort to have
several San Gabriel Valley cities designated as general expansion sites
of the Port of Long Beach's Foreign Trade Zone #50. Thus, we believe
that it's important to take heed of the 2001 state energy crisis, which
in many ways foreshadows what could happen with water if California
fails to plan for future growth. S. 976 would protect and restore
endangered habitats and ecosystems; authorize the State-Federal CALFED
partnership; and create off-stream water storage so that more water
from wet years can be saved for use during dry years. Such measures
ensure continued economic prosperity throughout our state and
maintaining the competitive level of California State economy. SGVEP
supports efforts to establish a reliable water supply through a
balanced program of projects in the following areas:
Ecosystem Restoration
Improved Infrastructure
Improved Water Management
The future of California depends on managing our limited water
resources wisely and responsibly. S. 976 represents a comprehensive
approach to confront the water issues facing California's economy and
overall quality of life. The San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
appreciates your support of our region and proactive stance on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Marquez,
President & Chief Executive Officer.
______
Ducks Unlimited Inc.,
Western Regional Office,
Rancho Cordova, CA, May 2, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Subject: California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Western Regional Office of Ducks
Unlimited, Inc., through our Valley/Bay CARE Initiative, has been
actively involved in the delivery of projects to protect, enhance,
restore, and manage important wetlands and associated uplands in the
Central Valley and San Francisco Bay.
The CALFED program has been instrumental in providing the forum and
funding to implement these critical ecosystem enhancements, many of
which serve to benefit the critical role the Central Valley plays in
providing habitat for migratory waterfowl. Absent a continued
commitment in meeting the needs of California water supply and
ecosystem enhancement, we risk further degradation of Central Valley
wetland habitats. Current wetlands support up to 60% of the waterfowl
in the Pacific Flyway during their annual migration. Accordingly, Ducks
Unlimited, Inc. supports your draft legislation to re-authorize the
CALFED program.
We would like to continue to work with you and your staff to assure
that actual on-the-ground ecosystem enhancement is continued,
recognizing that current and future wetlands conservation is dependent
on highly managed eater systems that must meet multiple purposes. It is
also important to note that agriculture, either through common
conveyance and drainage systems or winter flooding of crops such as
rice, plays a critical role in maintaining wetland and associated
riparian/upland habitats.
Thank you for your leadership on this important legislation that
will not only serve California, but also help meet the needs of North
American waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway.
Sincerely,
Ryan Broddrick,
Director of Conservation, Valley/Bay CARE.
______
Chamber of Commerce,
San Jose Silicon Valley,
San Jose, CA, May 11, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington DC.
Subject: California Water Supply and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2001
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the members of the San Jose/
Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, I would like to commend you for
your continued leadership and interest in addressing the State's
critical water supply, water quality and ecosystem needs. By way of
background, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce represents
nearly 2,000 companies covering the full spectrum of the business
community.
In particular, I write to encourage you to introduce your proposed
legislation to re-authorize the CALFED program and to provide funding
for the enhancement of the water supply and ecosystem in the State of
California. The business community in Silicon Valley concurs with your
assessment that California's electricity crisis is a stark lesson of
failure to properly plan ahead to meet our growing needs. The business
community does not want to see this lesson repeated with water supply.
We are delighted to see that a number of projects and programs
critical to Santa Clara County's water supply, water quality, and
environmental needs are included in the legislation. Working with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District, we look forward to the introduction
of your proposed legislation and working with you and your staff as the
bill language gets developed and refined to ensure that all interests
of the various stakeholders are addressed, and that no particular
interest is advanced to the detriment of others.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this important
legislation that will provide statewide benefits for many years to
come. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Jim Cunneen,
President and CEO.
______
Association of Bay Area Governments,
Oakland, CA, June 6, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Association of Bay Area Governments
recently established the ABAG-CALFED Task Force (see attached roster of
current members). Members of the task force and members of the Bay Area
public believe that the core of the CALFED solution is restoration of
the Bay and Delta. The road to California's water future relies on a
long-term commitment to the restoration of the Bay and Delta. This
integrated approach, promoted by CALFED, needs your full support.
The Task Force supports the principles and actions proposed in both
the CALFED Framework for Action and the Record of Decision. We believe
that the CALFED Program provides a vision for how all Californians can
work together to improve the Bay-Delta ecosystem, stabilize water
supplies and improve drinking water quality through a robust,
integrated and balanced program.
We support your efforts to develop federal legislation that will
re-authorize federal funding for the CALFED Program over the next
several years. Our efforts to achieve critical CALFED objectives in the
Bay Area are dependent on a reliable source of both state and federal
funding. We believe that all elements of the CALFED Program must move
ahead in a balanced manner that reflects both the CALFED Principles of
Implementation and the specific programmatic commitments made in the
ROD, and that any federal funding authorization for CALFED should be
consistent with those principles and commitments. At the same time, at
the regional level, we will educate local governments and the general
public about the CALFED Bay-Area strategy, and ensure that the CALFED
Program is integrated with local environmental restoration and water
management efforts.
Thank you again for your continued efforts on behalf of the CALFED
Program.
Yours very truly,
Mike Rippey,
Board of Supervisors, Napa
County,
Chair, ABAG-CALFED Task
Force.
______
Sweetwater Authority,
Chula Vista, CA, June 20, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing on behalf of Sweetwater
Authority to express our support for S. 976, the California Ecosystem,
Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001.
As a local water retailer with a strong interest in the protection
of both the supply and the quality of drinking water for our customers,
Sweetwater Authority fully appreciates the magnitude of the challenges
the State of California faces in this area. S. 976 is critical
legislation that will provide comprehensive solutions to these pressing
water needs in California. By working together on this statewide
effort, we can ensure that the continuing growing demand for water is
met in concert with the environmental protection, which is important to
all.
Thank you for taking the lead on this legislation to improve the
availability, quality and reliability of water in our state.
Sincerely,
Al R. Sorensen,
General Manager.
______
Long Beach Water Department,
Long Beach, CA, June 21, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Senate Bill 976 (Senator Feinstein)--CalFed Authorization--
Notification of SUPPORT
Dear Senator Feinstein: It is my pleasure to communicate to you the
Board of Water Commissioners' support for Senate Bill 976. The Board of
Water Commissioners provides an uninterruptible supply of high quality
drinking water to the 461,000 people in California's 5th largest city,
the City of Long Beach. The City relies on imports to meet half of its
drinking water needs, much of this water coming from the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento Delta watershed.
S. 976 will increase water quality and reliability in the Bay/Delta
impact area, which includes Southern California, by creating off-stream
storage so that more water from wet years can be stored and used during
dry years, and by authorizing about $3 billion in much-needed Federal
spending for hundreds of important projects and programs in this
watershed.
On behalf of the Board of Water Commissioners, it is my pleasure to
thank you for your efforts to secure long-term water reliability and
quality for the people and economy of the State of California.
Sincerely,
Stephen T. Conley,
President, Board of Water Commissioners.
______
Lower Tule River Irrigation District,
Porterville, CA, June 22, 2001.
Hon. Ken Calvert,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Calvert: On behalf of the Board of Directors of
the Lower Tule River Irrigation District, I am writing to express our
District's support for the Western Water Enhancement Security Act of
2001 (H.R. 1985). In addition, I would like to thank you for taking
time to meet with myself and the District's Board President Robert
Bowman in Washington D.C. on June 14th of this year.
We believe that the Act goes along way in fulfilling the mission of
the CALFED program by authorizing a long-term, balanced effort to
address California's water supply and water quality needs. It is
encouraging to see proposed legislation that balances the needs of the
California water community and is not solely focused on environmental
issues.
Your legislation also recognizes the long neglected need of moving
aggressively in the development of new storage and conveyance
facilities. The strength of California and the future of our state lie
in being pro-active in the development of water related systems that
are critical to all elements of California.
The success of the comprehensive effort envisioned by H.R. 1985 is
vitally important to our District. We serve an agricultural water
supply to more than 100,000 acres and countless family farms in the
Friant Division on the east side of the San-Joaquin Valley.
We commend you for your leadership on this difficult and complex
issue and for your determination to move CALFED legislation forward
rapidly. The Lower Tule River Irrigation District pledges to work
constructively with you to improve H.R. 1985 to address important
issues of concern to our District. .
Very truly yours,
Daniel G. Vink,
General Manager.
______
Kern-Tulare Water District,
Bakersfield, CA, June 26, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Kern-Tulare Water District strongly
supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed
this year to re-authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water
management and environmental restoration project in our state's
history. It plans vitally needed improvements of water supple
reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict
between human water needs and the environment.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the Program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for
district projects throughout California. In the Delano area, the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program's resources will improve water reliability, assist in
upgrading distribution system facilities, improve water use efficiency,
and improve energy use efficiency.
As California continues to grow, we will quickly outgrow the
investments made in water resources infrastructure over the past 30
years. If something isn't done immediately, the state will soon face
critical water shortages on a routine basis. We can't afford to neglect
our infrastructure any longer.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered by
CALFED. For that reason, the Kern-Tulare Water District urges your
support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Dalke,
General Manager.
______
Woodbridge Irrigation District,
Woodbridge, CA, June 27, 2001.
Hon. Xavier Becerra,
Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985
Dear Representative Becerra: The Woodbridge Irrigation District
strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation
needed this year to re-authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water
management and environmental restoration project in our state's
history. It plans vitally needed improvements of water supply
reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict
between human water needs and the environment.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for
district projects throughout California. In our own community, the
CALFED Bay-Delta program's resources will improve water quality, assist
in flood control, upgrade pumping facilities, promote fish and wildlife
restoration, recreation, public safety and drought assistance.
California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest
investments made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis
has shown, there is a tremendous price to pay for being caught without
adequate resources--whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable
water supply. We can't afford to neglect our infrastructure.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered by
CALFED. For that reason, the Woodbridge Irrigation District urges your
support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985.
Sincerely,
Anders Christensen,
Manager.
______
Calaveras County Water District,
San Andreas, CA, June 27, 2001.
Hon. Congressman John T. Doolittle,
Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985
Congressman Doolittle: The Calaveras County Water District strongly
supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan Federal legislation needed
this year to re-authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water
management and environmental restoration project in our state's
history. The CALFED program provides for vitally needed improvements of
water supply reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history
of conflict between human water needs and the environment.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for
district projects throughout California. Calaveras County Water
District (District) is currently completing several surface water and
ground water investigations within the Calaveras River watershed. The
District intends to incorporate this information into an application to
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program for a proposed Calaveras River Conjunctive
Use Feasibility Study and Pilot Program. During drought periods New
Hogan Reservoir on the Calaveras River does not provide adequate water
for the growing areas of Jenny Lind and Rancho Calaveras in Calaveras
County. Storing wet weather flow in the 70 square mile groundwater
basin located in the Camanche/Valley Springs area of Calaveras County
will provide a drinking water supply for these communities during
periods of drought. Your support of funding for the above program would
provide significant benefits to Calaveras County residents living
within the Calaveras River Watershed. The District is looking to S. 976
and H.R. 1985 to provide funding for this essential project.
California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest
investments made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis
has shown, there is a tremendous price to pay for being caught without
adequate resources--whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable
water supply. We can't afford to neglect our infrastructure.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered by
CALFED. For that reason, the Calaveras County Water District urges your
support of S. 976 and H.R. 1985.
Sincerely,
Simon Granville,
General Manager.
______
Alameda County Water Dustrict,
Fremont, CA, June 28, 2001.
Hon. Pete Stark,
Cannon House Office Bldg., U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Stark: The Alameda County Water District (ACWD)
strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation
needed this year to re-authorized the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water
management and environmental restoration project in our state's
history. It plans vitally needed improvements of water supply
reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict
between human water needs and the environment.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for
district projects throughout California. In our own community, the
CALFED Bay-Delta program's resources will improve water quality, water
supply reliability and assist in new water conservation programs.
California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest
investments made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis
has shown, there is a tremendous price to pay for being caught without
adequate resources--whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable
water supply. We can't afford to neglect our infrastructure.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered by
CALFED. For that reason, ACWD urges your support for S. 976 and H.R.
1958.
Sincerely,
James G. Gunther,
Board President.
Rio Alto Water District,
Cottonwood, CA, June 29, 2001.
Hon. Wally Herger,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985
Dear Representative Herger: The Rio Alto Water District strongly
supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal legislation needed
this year to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water
management and environmental restoration project in our state's
history. It plans vitally needed improvements of water supply
reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict
between human water needs and the environment.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat projects and provides vital loan and grant resources for
district projects throughout California. In Tehama County, the CALFED
Bay-Delta program's resources will improve water quality, assist in
flood control, upgrade pumping facilities, promote fish and wildlife
restoration, recreation, public safety and drought assistance.
California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest
investments made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis
has shown, there is a tremendous price to pay for being caught without
adequate resources--whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable
water supply. We can't afford to neglect our infrastructure.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered by
CALFED. For that reason the Rio Alto Water District urges your support
for S. 976 and H.R. 1985.
Sincerely,
Roger Sherrill,
General Manager.
______
Mojave Water Agency,
Apple Valley, CA, July 3, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your commitment to improving
the quality and reliability of California's water supply through S.
976. Mojave Water Agency (MWA) applauds you for your foresight in
planning for California's water future.
California's water supply needs strong legislation like S. 976 to
ensure our water future. MWA is especially interested in the
``comprehensive'' nature of the bill, which will fund projects in all
parts of the State for the improvement of water supply reliability.
With proper planning carried out collectively by local, State and
Federal stakeholders, California can avoid a disaster happening to the
water industry similar to what has occurred to the energy industry. S.
976 is an important part of this plan. Thank you for introducing this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Kirby Brill, P.E.,
General Manager.
______
Water Replenishment District
of Southern California,
Cerritos, CA, July 12, 2001.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 976 Support
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Water Replenishment District of
Southern California (WRD) appreciates the leadership that you have
demonstrated with the introduction of S. 976. We are pleased to report
that the WRD is in full support of your legislation. We are also in
support of H.R. 1985 (Calvert) and commend the bipartisan effort to
reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The WRD manages groundwater, which meets 40% of the water demand
needs for 4 million residents in south Los Angeles County. As the
regional groundwater management agency for 43 cities, WRD ensures that
a reliable supply of high quality groundwater is available through our
clean water projects, water supply programs, and effective basin
management principles. Additionally, the WRD seeks to optimize the
groundwater basins to decrease the region's dependence on imported
water and increase usage of local water resources.
The WRD looks to the CALFED Program as a vehicle to help reduce the
conflict between the water needs of our state's population, economy,
and the environment. As the largest and most comprehensive water
management program and environmental restoration project in our state's
history, the CALFED Program will provide for critical improvements to
water supply reliability and Delta water quality.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 976 implement the program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat programs, and provides vital loan and grant resources for local
projects throughout California. For our own region, the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program will help to improve water quality and overall water
supply reliability.
A secure California water future requires the full range solutions
offered by CALFED. The WRD have and will continue to contact other
members of our congressional delegation to urge their support on your
legislation and H.R. 976 to reauthorize CALFED.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Mowry, Ph.D., P.E.,
General Manager.
______
United Water Conservation District,
Santa Paula, CA.
Hon. Elton Gallegly,
Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985
Dear Representative Gallegly: The United Water Conservation
District strongly supports S. 976 and H.R. 1985; bipartisan federal
legislation needed this year to re-authorize the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
The CALFED Program is the largest and most comprehensive water
management and environmental restoration project in our state's
history. It plans vitally needed improvements of water supply
reliability and quality in the Delta, reducing the history of conflict
between human water needs and the environment.
Both S. 976 and H.R. 1985 implement the program's Record of
Decision. This document enables work to begin on specific ecosystem and
habitat projects, and provides vital loan and grant resources for
district projects throughout California. In our own community, Ventura
County, the CALFED Bay-Delta program's resources will improve water
quality, assist in flood control, upgrade pumping facilities, promote
fish and wildlife restoration, recreation, public safety and drought
assistance.
California continues to grow, and will quickly outgrow the modest
investments made in water over the past 30 years. As the energy crisis
has shown, there is a tremendous price to pay for being caught without
adequate resources--whether it is megawatts of power or a reliable
water supply. We can't afford to neglect our infrastructure.
California's water challenges demand the solutions offered by
CALFED. For that reason, the United Water Conservation District thanks
you for your support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985.
Sincerely,
Daniel C. Naumann,
President of the Board.