[Senate Hearing 108-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-469
WESTERN WATER SUPPLY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING WATER SUPPLY ISSUES IN THE
ARID WEST
__________
MARCH 9, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
93-903 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Shelly Randel, Counsel
Patty Beneke, Democratic Senior Counsel
Mike Connor, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
American Farm Bureau Federation.................................. 63
Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council.... 45
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico............. 1
Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture............... 32
Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers......................... 18
Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians,
and Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation............... 50
Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior.. 5
Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for
Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration................................................. 26
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 67
WESTERN WATER SUPPLY
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, Chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The hearing will please come to order.
We will have a Senator to take my place in a little while
when I have to attend another hearing.
First, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the
witnesses to this hearing relating to water supply issues in
the arid West. We will discuss many issues today and I hope my
colleagues will use this time to outline the pressing water
issues they feel we must meet in their individual States, as
well as in our country.
In my opinion, every State in the West, and for that
matter, every State in the country faces the same problem. How
do we supply adequate water, clean water, for our rural
communities? How do we deal with the equally difficult problem
of treating waste water, especially in rural small towns?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental
Protection Agency both work to address these issues, but the
need is astronomical, pervasive, and persistent. We can no
longer put off our Federal responsibility in my opinion. While
I do not feel it is appropriate to constantly invent new
Federal programs, I am convinced that all agencies with
responsibility to manage water resources must be engaged. There
are two key elements.
First, we must make the technology and management methods
work and be cost effective. We cannot expect to fix these
problems solely based on today's methods and technology.
We must find a way to provide enough funding to bring
clean, adequate water to these communities. One way would be to
create a viable matching-funds program within the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation that partners the Federal Government and the
States to assist rural communities across America.
Over the next few months, the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee will address some of these Federal and State
relationships. One of these partnerships that directly affects
New Mexico is the Arizona water settlement, which includes the
Gila River claims in New Mexico. We must move forward with
these settlements, but we must be prudent. I am particularly
mindful that New Mexico receive its full allotment of water and
receive the financial support it needs and deserves as we move
this legislation forward.
If you have followed the headlines in any number of Western
States, you have probably seen some similar to these:
``Forecast Dire for Drought Relief,'' ``Drought Not Letting Up
on West's Farmers,'' ``Western Power Plants Come Under Scrutiny
as Demand and Drought Besiege Supplies,'' ``Growth Drying Up
Water Sources.''
I do not even know where to begin to describe the vast
challenges facing States like mine and surrounding ones, but I
would like to take just a minute to point out a few that I
believe highlight the issues.
We are entering the fifth consecutive year of a drought and
forecasts call for less than average annual runoff in 2004. We
anticipate the lack of runoff this year will exacerbate the
already dire situation. One of the regions that will be hit the
hardest in New Mexico is the Middle Rio Grande where for
several years now we have been litigating over the allocation
of already drought diminished supplies. This region has really
struggled with the necessity of providing water to the largest
city in the State, providing water for agricultural uses in the
valley, providing water to six Indian pueblos, and finally
providing an adequate supply for the endangered Rio Grande
silvery minnow.
Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and California all face similar
problems.
Water continues to be the backbone of the economy, and we
all seem to be waiting, kind of walking in place, as the
problems seem to be all around us. We just wonder what in the
world we can do. In addition to protecting existing supplies
and creating some new water sources, this means that we need to
invest today in research for the advancement of the state of
the art in desalinization, demineralization, water reuse, and
purification technologies.
I have some additional comments. I am going to make them
part of the record and proceed to ask the witnesses to address
the committee and put their statements in and make them as
brief as possible.
Panel one, the Honorable Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science, Department of the Interior, would you
proceed first? Thank you very much for all the hard work you
do, and it is my pleasure to have you here today.
[The prepared statements of Senators Domenici, Allard, and
Talent follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
I would like to take the opportunity to welcome all of the
witnesses to this hearing related to water supply issues in the arid
West. We will discuss many issues today and I hope my colleagues will
use this time to outline the pressing water issues they feel we must be
met in their individual states as well as nationally.
It is my opinion that every state in the west, and for that matter,
every state in this great nation faces the same desperate problems. How
do we supply adequate clean water for our rural communities? And how do
we deal with the equally difficult problem of treating waste water?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection
Agency both work to address these issues, but the need is astronomical,
pervasive, and persistent. We can no longer put off our federal
responsibility. While, I don't feel it is appropriate to constantly
invent new federal programs, I am convinced that all agencies with
responsibility to manage water resources must be engaged. There are two
key elements in solving these problems.
First, we must make the technology and management methods work and
be cost effective. We cannot expect to fix these problems solely based
on today's methods and technology.
Second, we must find a way to provide enough funding to bring clean
adequate water to these communities. One way would be to create a
viable matching funds program within the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
that partners the Federal government and states to assist rural
communities across America.
Over the next few months, the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee will address some of these Federal-State partnerships issues.
One of these partnerships, that directly affects New Mexico, is the
Arizona water settlement which includes Gila River claims in New
Mexico. We must move forward with these settlements, but we must be
prudent. I am particularly mindful that New Mexico receive its full
allotment of water and receive the financial support it needs and
deserves as we move that legislation forward.
If you have followed the headlines in any number of western states,
you have probably seen some similar to these: ``Forecast Dire for
Drought Relief'', ``Drought not letting up on West's Farmers'',
``Western power plants come under scrutiny as demand and drought
besiege supplies'', ``Growth drying up water sources.'' These headlines
highlight some of the areas continually plagued by drought in the
West--the farming sector, the power industry, and of course our cities
and towns.
I don't even know where to begin to describe the vast challenges
facing New Mexico, but I would like to take a minute to point out a few
which I believe best highlight the issues:
We are entering our fifth consecutive year of drought and forecasts
call for less than average annual run off in 2004. We anticipate that
the lack of runoff this year will exacerbate an already dire situation.
One of the regions that will be hit the hardest in New Mexico is the
Middle Rio Grande where for several years now we have been litigating
over the allocation of already drought diminished supplies. This region
has really struggled with the necessity of providing water to the
largest city in the State, providing water for agricultural uses in the
valley, providing water to 6 Pueblos, and finally providing an adequate
supply for the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow.
The pressure on the water supply in the Western United States has
reached a critical point. Everyone is facing the prospect of declining
water availability. For example, city planners in my home town of
Albuquerque have speculated about the growth constraints facing the
city due to limited groundwater resources.
Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and California all face similar problems.
The Western United States is the fastest growing region in the country.
This population explosion will undoubtedly result in a scarcity of
fresh water sooner than many realize.
Water continues to be the backbone of our economy. Safe and
adequate supplies of water are vital for agriculture, industry,
recreation, and human consumption. In addition to protecting our
existing water supply, we need to explore new ideas for expanding that
supply and creating ``new'' sources of water. This means that we need
to invest today in research for the advancement of state of the art in
desalination, demineralization water reuse and other purification
technologies.
The lack of a water supply isn't the real issue; it is the quality
of the supplies surrounding us that is problematic. Brackish and sea
water account for over 97% of the water on earth. There are brackish
groundwater basins under many areas of the West, including New Mexico.
Coastal states have the benefit of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coast
on which to draw new supplies, but we need to take steps now and invest
in the technology to utilize these supplies in a cost effective manner.
Being able to cheaply covert this ``new'' supply into fresh water is
vital to our future. Additionally, expanding our capabilities of
reusing and conserving more water must also be thoroughly investigated.
I know our committee is planning to explore many of these concepts
later this month in our desalination hearing and I intend to do what I
can to make significant advancements in these areas.
On the water quality, the Environmental Protection Agency is
steadfast in enforcing a new standard for arsenic levels in drinking
water that will burden many communities even though it rests upon
questionable scientific underpinnings. In 2006, new EPA federal
drinking water regulations will take effect. Although arsenic is a
naturally occurring substance found throughout New Mexico, many of the
state's small, rural communities, will be most affected by the new
regulations and are the least able to pay for these new arsenic
standards.
This arsenic issue is only one of the major hurdles facing rural
communities today. The lack of a comprehensive Federal program able to
assist these communities in providing safe, affordable and adequate
supplies is another. There are currently two bills pending before this
committee, one that I authored and one that Senator Bingaman
introduced. We note that the Administration has provided a third
version which they have asked me to introduce on their behalf. These
bills create this much needed program. I intend to work with Senator
Bingaman and the Administration in hopes of creating such a program. I
note that we will also be having a hearing on the need for a rural
water program later this month as well.
I have only touched on some of the issues affecting my state. As
you all know access to fresh water is an increasingly critical national
and international issue. As the world's population grows and our stores
of fresh water are depleted, finding additional sources of fresh water
will be key to ensuring our future and security both domestically and
internationally.
I believe however, that we have a unique opportunity through new
programs and new advances in technology to not only create new
supplies, but also to provide the infrastructure to deliver these safe
and affordable supplies to many in rural America and other parts of the
country. I stand ready to assist in any way I can and I look forward to
hearing what our witnesses have to say about these critical issues here
today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Mr. Chairman: As you know, the western United States continues to
suffer through a sustained period of unprecedented drought. Large
portions of my home state of Colorado are in the midst of a fourth year
without adequate moisture. While state efforts to provide the
appropriate relief continue, the federal government must act
cooperatively with the states to bolster drought mitigation efforts
where such federal involvement is appropriate. Appropriate action
includes federal aid in dealing with invasive plant species--one of the
largest culprits of water theft.
The expansion of a variety of invasive plant species known as
phreatophytes threatens more than the natural plant mix and wildlife
forage. Phreatophytes, including the Salt Cedar (or Tamarisk) consume
vast amounts of water and degrade the natural environment. For example,
the Tamarisk is known to consume more than 200 gallons of water a day
and may lead to high salinity levels in rivers and soil. They also
alter the natural course of the river through a root system that grows
some 250 feet down into the ground. I commend your efforts to introduce
legislation that creates new partnerships and funding to eradicate
these invasive plants. Senator Campbell also deserves praise for his
efforts as well. I am a strong supporter of the legislation and look
forward to providing you with any assistance you should require. By
working together, we can develop a common sense approach to tackling
the water theft by invasive plant species and ultimately restoring the
health of our riparian systems.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Talent, U.S. Senator From Missouri
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I think there are
few issues as conflict-ridden as water issues. In the West and
Northwest, you have no shortage of water conflicts. In Missouri, we
have our share too.
For 14-years the Corps of Engineers has been working on the new
Master Manual for the Missouri River. It was released earlier this
month and we are now in the public comment period. I recognize the
challenge that exists when trying to balance upstream and downstream
interests but stakeholders in Missouri are very concerned with the
recommendations in this plan.
In 1980, nearly 3M commercial tons moved on the Missouri River, in
1866, the Corps started tinkering with the Master Manual and we lost
that reliable channel on the Missouri River. In 1990, we were down to
1.3M tons. Today, I submit for the record an article that ran in the
St. Louis Post Dispatch on January 14 of this year*--``Two barge
companies drop anchor.'' I'll read you the lead paragraph: ``Uncertain
about the depth of the Missouri River this summer, the two barge
companies that move grain and fertilizer on the Big Muddy have shut
down their operations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The article has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll also take a moment to point out, 1997, the Tennessee Valley
Authority stated that the competition of water transportation kept rail
rates down to competitive levels and saved shippers $203M annually. I'm
sure that number is still true today.
General Grisoli, can you tell me what your role was (personally) in
the development of this plan?
The MM states (page VII-I) that ``Congress did not assign a
priority to these purposes [the eight congressionally authorized
purposes of the river--flood control, navigation, irrigation, etc.] . . .
The Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update
Study (Master Manual Study) was conducted without bias toward any
project purpose.''
In June, 2003, the 8th Circuit Court released a ruling affirming
the priorities of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The court stated,
``The dominant functions of the Flood Control Act were to avoid
flooding and to maintain downstream navigation'' and recognized that
``recreation and other interests [are] secondary uses'' on the river.
How do you align the philosophy that Congress did not assign a
priority with the 8th Circuit ruling that stated that ``flood control
and navigation'' are dominant functions of the Flood Control Act of
1944?
The new Master Manual calls for a spring rise or ``pulses'' in the
spring. While recently we've been in a drought situation, the floods of
'93 and '95 were not that long ago. Those floods did major damage to
farmland and urban areas of St. Louis and Kansas City. If we had
additional, Corps imposed flooding, I can't imagine the devastation and
outrage in the countryside.
Can you show me conclusive evidence that a spring rise called for
in the Master Manual will actually improve the pallid sturgeon
population? I can give you scientific data that implies that
temperature, more than water depth is the spawning cue for the
sturgeon. Additionally, the populations for the interior least tern and
the piping plover have seen major improvements in recent years. So the
only species you are working to improve here is the sturgeon.
Another issue that Missouri stakeholders have raised is that it
appears the river will be operated by the Annual Operating Plan (AOP)
rather than according to a long-term Master Manual (MM) rule. With that
being the case, how can stakeholders expect any reliability when river
operations are potentially subject to vast change on an annual basis
and where there opportunity for input in the AOP process is limited and
usually doesn't change the direction the Corps' plan is heading for the
coming year?
Stakeholders were explicitly told by the Corps that ``water
banking'' would not be a part of any new MM. A review of the MM
indicates that the ``water banking'' scheme is indeed a part of the new
manual. What is the reasoning for including a feature in the manual
that was categorically guaranteed on numerous occasions would be
eliminated after this year? FYI--``water banking'' is detrimental to
navigation as water used downstream is balanced against upstream uses
creating ``debits'' to navigation that result in reduced season length.
STATEMENT OF BENNETT RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Raley. Senator, it is always a pleasure to be before
this committee.
Thank you for allowing my written statement to be added to
the record. As is my custom, I will get right to the point.
If we look at this year as a snapshot from the Department
of the Interior standpoint, focusing on the West, the drought
is easing slightly West-wide, and we have some areas that were
suffering deeply in 2001 and 2002 that will not suffer as
badly. However, we still believe that there is a serious
potential for challenges in the Middle Rio Grande in your home
State of New Mexico, as well as in the Klamath Basin. Those are
the two areas that we are most worried about if we focus on the
short term.
As you mentioned, in the Colorado River basin, there like
in the Middle Rio Grande we are in, depending on how you count
it, the fifth year of a drought. The drought seems to be easing
slightly, but we are still not up to normal runoff conditions.
And as Commissioner Keyes testified some time ago, to
understand the consequence of this deep and long drought, the
best way to picture it is to understand that if we simply have
nothing but normal conditions, it will take 15 to 20 years to
refill the system.
The Colorado is blessed in the mainstem with storage
capacity that is unmatched in any of the other Western rivers.
I think those who came before us of both parties that had the
wisdom to build that storage because, without it, the Colorado
River basin States would be in deep trouble today.
With that, we have the flexibility to manage through more
years of the drought, but as I come from a meeting of the seven
States last Friday in Las Vegas, if the drought continues,
there will be very serious issues on the mainstem, that will
have to be faced by the Department and those States.
But the point that you make, Senator, is one that Secretary
Norton would agree with most strongly, in that the issue is
broad and pervasive. It is our belief that unlike the last
century when water supply conflicts were either limited to
times of drought or focused on fights over control of the
resource for 20 to 50 years in the future, and those fights, as
much as we in the West enjoyed them and hated them and wrestled
through them, at the time of the last century were largely of
local and regional importance.
The new paradigm for this century is that water supply
issues are no longer going to be driven by droughts alone. We
have a number of basins--and New Mexico is the classic
example--where we have the potential for crisis in normal
conditions. You know that well. Senator Bingaman knows that,
and that is a challenge that will not go away with the next
snowfall. That is the purpose of Water 2025, is to focus on the
changing reality that it is no longer going to be a drought-
driven debate. The water supply needs of the West, given the
explosive population growth and the emergence of demands for
endangered species and environmental restoration guarantee
that, without action today, we will have crises in normal
years.
Senator Bingaman, I was just mentioning that,
unfortunately, the Department believes that New Mexico
continues to be one of the areas we are most concerned about
from a water supply standpoint. While the drought is easing
somewhat in some of the other basins, this summer is going to
be a challenge for all of us to work together, and we look
forward to working with both of the Senators from New Mexico.
The second change in the paradigm from the last century,
the first being that the conflicts were driven by drought and
the impacts were limited to local and regional issues, is that
we will first have normal year driven conflicts. The second is
very clear, that water supply shortages in the next century
will affect economies and resources of national and
international importance. Water supply issues will no longer be
an issue that is debated fiercely in the West. They have
national importance. I need only point to the emergence of the
dynamic of cities of Albuquerque, Phoenix, southern California,
the rest of the West where there are nationally important
economies to prove that water supply issues, if we fail to
address them, will affect economies of national importance.
California alone is the fifth largest economy in the world.
I need also point only to the Endangered Species Act, which
is a national priority. We all know, painfully so, that water
supply shortages have serious implications for attaining goals
of the Endangered Species Act.
Simply put, the next century the water debate will change.
We will have conflict, unless we do something now, in normal
years, and that conflict will address and impact economies and
resources of national importance.
Water 2025 is Secretary Norton's attempt to get to the
reality that we do not have time for endless process. Process
without progress is failure because it takes years to put in
place the institutional and infrastructure answers to these
supply issues, and we no longer have the luxury of debating it
for decades to come.
With that, I will conclude my oral remarks and hope to
engage with both Senators in questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Bennett Raley,
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior.
I am pleased to be here today to testify on western water issues and
the role the Department plays in managing and enhancing these important
resources.
OVERVIEW OF WATER IN THE WEST
As I begin my testimony, I believe it would be helpful to first
step back and examine the broad scope of issues related to water in the
West. As we work to resolve the many individual water problems from the
Federal perspective, we must remember to do so within the context of
this broader picture, continuing to rely upon important guiding
principles in the process. This Administration is committed to working
hard on these issues at the local level as well as with the Congress,
and in particular, the Members of this Committee. We must find
sensible, affordable, and balanced solutions to the West's water
problems in order to provide the certainty necessary for Western
communities, industries, farms, and environment to all thrive. Almost
all bureaus within Interior are involved with water issues, but my
testimony today will center on the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.
Geological Survey and their proud histories, recent accomplishments,
and vision for the future.
In 1888 USGS began the process of gaging the rivers of the West
when it developed the methods for streamgaging at Embudo, New Mexico.
In fact, the staff at USGS who began this quantification of the
resource became the Irrigation Survey, and in 1902, became the Bureau
of Reclamation. And the Bureau of Reclamation was there, beginning in
1902 to build water projects in support of this effort to ``reclaim''
the arid lands of the West.
Reclamation began constructing projects that, at the time, were
considered ``impossible'' to construct huge dams, hydroelectric
generators, and vast networks of canals diverting water from rivers and
streams to turn dry, nonproductive lands into the fertile and
productive farms and ranches that continue to be the envy of the world.
Reclamation dams created water supply reservoirs that allowed water to
be managed. Floods were controlled and water was stored and released
when needed, making electricity in the process. These facilities made
irrigated agriculture possible in the West by creating a more stable
supply of water that could be delivered during the prime growing
season. They also provided a new source of water and power to cities
and industries year round.
As the demand for water increased in these early years, so did
conflict over its use, resulting in a system of water rights developed
by the Western states to deal with these escalating water problems. The
federal government recognizes the primacy of each state to establish
its own system of water rights and regulations. And while the primary
purpose of this regulation is to insure certainty and predictability in
water management, conflict continues. A common element of this conflict
across the West is that available water supplies are often inadequate
to meet the demand for water for farming, cities, tribes, and the
environment.
The good news is that we can look back over the years and see
countless water conflicts, large and small, that have been resolved by
people of good will. We know that conflict can be destructive to
everyone's best interest and we have, over time, found innovative
solutions to these complex challenges. Quantification and understanding
of the resource have been and continue to be crucial to sound
management. The USGS is responsible for this scientific process through
its streamgages, observation wells, statistical analyses, and
hydrologic models. They do this in cooperation with 607 State, local,
and Tribal agencies in the Reclamation States.
Reclamation projects continue to provide the important water
supplies critical to the traditional water uses for which they were
originally designed and built. However, the West has become the fastest
growing area of the country. Environmental demands for water have also
increased over the past several decades. Restoration of rivers and
streams to support habitat for species of fish and wildlife listed as
endangered or threatened by Federal laws have created even more
pressure on the West's already stretched water resources. Compounding
the demand picture is the current protracted period of drought
conditions across the inter-mountain west that we are currently in.
CURRENT HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
In comparing precipitation this year to the same time last year, we
see substantial improvement in many areas of the West which bodes well
for the upcoming water year. The dark red areas in the following
Drought Monitor and USGS monthly average streamflow illustrations*
represents the worst conditions where drought is predicted to be most
severe. As you can see, they are more dispersed and localized this
season than last year. We continue to see improvement in snowpack and
rainfall, even in areas where we predict shortages. In much of the
West, streamflows are currently averaging near normal. The exceptions
are the Great Basin, Upper and Lower Colorado, and the Rio Grande
regions, where the multiyear run of below normal flows persists. Over
the past month, the lowest streamflows have been observed by the USGS
in the Great Salt Lake, North Platte, Salt, Upper Canadian, and Upper
Cimarron basins. Overall, although it is too early to accurately
predict drought conditions, we are encouraged by recent precipitation
and are monitoring all areas of the West for drought conditions on a
regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All illustrations have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further illustrate, the following are the relatively current
conditions in the major basins of the Western United States:
Mid-Pacific Region (Northern CA, Southern OR, Northern NV). Central
Valley Project reservoir storage levels remain above the 15-year
average. Accumulative inflows for the water year to date range from 112
percent in the Trinity Basin, 106 percent in the Shasta Basin, to 66
percent in the American Basin, 70 percent in the Stanislaus Basin, and
76 percent in the Upper San Joaquin Basin.
Great Plains Region (CO, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK & TX).
Temperatures are slightly above normal for this time of the year with
precipitation below normal. Reclamation reservoirs are at extremely low
levels, and inflows have been at record low levels. Available storage
in Reclamation facilities in NE and KS, as well as at several locations
in MT and WY has reached minimum levels.
Upper Colorado Region (NM, UT, Western CO, Southern WY). The Upper
Colorado Region is heading into its fifth consecutive dry year.
Following a promising start, snowpack levels are generally declining in
UT and CO, and are improving from a very poor start in NM. Reservoir
storage is low from four prior years of drought, and precipitation is
generally below average for most areas so far this year. A series of
heavy storms is needed to replenish the snowpacks before spring, when
parched soils will likely absorb much of the runoff.
Pacific Northwest Region (ID, OR, WA, Western WY & Western MT)
February precipitation was near normal in most of Oregon and Idaho, but
has lagged behind in the Yakima (WA), Flathead (MT), and Upper Snake
(ID/WY) basins. As a whole, Oregon snowpacks are in the 125% of normal
range, which promises relief for the Crooked, Malheur, Powder, and
Owyhee basins where it is needed most. Despite this, new runoff
forecasts should remain near to slightly below normal in most of the
Region due to dry soil conditions.
Lower Colorado Region (Southern NV, AZ, Southern CA). The Lower
Colorado region has been experiencing significant precipitation in
recent weeks. While that will do little to mitigate the Colorado River
drought, the same storms are also providing precipitation in the
southern portion of the Rocky Mountains which could increase runoff
volumes.
How much longer will this drought persist? How much worse might it
get? Although these questions cannot be answered simply or with
certainty, we know that multiyear droughts in the United States are
frequently associated with long-term shifts in Pacific and Atlantic
Ocean temperatures. Recent research by the USGS indicates that much of
the long-term predictability of drought frequency may reside in the
multidecadal behavior of the North Atlantic Ocean. Should the current
warm conditions in the North Atlantic persist into the coming decade,
it is possible that drought conditions resembling the continental-scale
patterns of the 1930s and the 1950s are possible.
EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE YEARS OF DROUGHT
The western U.S. has seen several large swings in climate during
the past century. These swings are defined by dry spells during 1898-
1904, 1946-1972, and wet periods during 1905-1924 and 1976-1998. Since
1999, the southwestern U.S., the southern and central Rockies and the
western Great Plains have been gripped by persistent drought,
particularly in 2002. Water year 2002 (October 2001-October 2002) was
the driest of the last century in Arizona (45% of the normal from 1895-
2002) and second driest for the Southwest (AZ, NM, CO, UT). Still, the
four-year average from 1999-2002 (77.8% of normal) was not as dry as
1953-1956 (76.6%) or 1901-1904 (71.9%). Regardless of ranking, the
ongoing drought has produced remarkable phenomena on the southwestern
landscape, creating conditions that contributed to a half-a-million-
acre fire on the Mogollon Rim to more than a million acres of pinyon
and ponderosa tree dieoffs in Arizona and New Mexico. In the Colorado
River Basin, the four years from 2000 to 2003 rival the years 1953
through 1956, which were previously the driest four years in the Basin.
If we have another similar dry year in 2004, we will surpass the driest
five years in the 100-years of historic records have been kept in the
Basin. While precipitation in the Basin so far this year is near
normal, the dry soil conditions will reduce actual runoff to a current
projection of 76% of average. In spite of the drought, the Colorado
River reservoir system is still 53% full and will allow limited surplus
water deliveries in the lower Basin this year.
The Klamath Basin has been a central focus for water issues in the
West during the past few years. In 2001 because of extremely dry
conditions and the requirements of an Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Biological Opinion and Tribal trust responsibilities, the Klamath
farmers were unable to receive water for agriculture for the first time
in 96 years. Later season releases of 75,000 acre-feet of water were
insufficient to mitigate the impacts to many of the farms and the 5
Klamath wildlife refuges in the Basin. In short, the Klamath Basin
suffers from too much demand for water. Drought conditions exacerbate
the situation with the only remedy being to reduce that demand.
The Middle Rio Grande has been under drought conditions since 1996,
and the Rio Grande Compact storage restrictions, engaged in 2002,
continue to greatly impact storage capability for farmers. Heron, El
Vado, and Elephant Butte reservoirs averaged 83 percent capacity in
1999. Today, the three reservoirs average about 15 percent capacity.
The Six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, El Paso Water Improvement
District #1, and Mexico all received full water supplies in 1999.
Today, the Six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos are on a strict rotation
schedule. The Middle Rio Grange Conservancy District is also on a
strict rotation schedule and anticipates non-Indian farmers being able
to irrigate through mid-July. The other water Districts are projected
to receive a 59 percent supply.
WATER 2025: PREVENTING CRISIS AND CONFLICT IN THE WEST
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton has made Water 2025 a key
focus for the Department of the Interior because water truly is the
``lifeblood'' of the American West. Water 2025 is based on the reality
that the economic, social, and environmental health of the West is
important to the people of this nation. Water 2025 is also based on the
reality that the demands for water in many basins of the West exceed
the available supply even in normal years.
These realities, when combined with the fact that the West is home
to some of the fastest growing communities in the nation, guarantee
that water supply-related crises will become more frequent if we do not
take action now. Unlike the past century, when water crises were
intense, but typically occurred in drought years and only affected
resources and economies of local and regional importance, water supply-
related crises in this century will affect economies and resources of
national and international importance unless we take action now.
Water 2025 has been ``road-tested'' with 3000 people attending one
of ten meetings throughout the West. The bottom line is that, while
there was a significant debate over what should or should not be added
to Water 2025, almost all participants endorsed Water 2025 as an
approach that will unite, not divide, very divergent interests.
Our ``hot spots map'' shows where we believe the next crises and
conflict over water exist, and identifies the areas where we should
concentrate our resources.
The red areas are where conflict potential over water is highly
likely; orange areas where conflict potential is substantial; and
yellow areas where conflict potential is moderate. Reclamation will
periodically update these designations and use it to help prioritize
areas of the West where Water 2025 could be implemented to prevent
conflict and crises.
With the support of Congress in the FY 2004 Budget, Secretary
Norton has moved forward with Water 2025 with the announcement of the
Secretary's Water 2025 Challenge Grants. These grants will be made
throughout the West in the summer of 2004 on a cost-share basis for
projects that make real progress towards avoiding water crises in the
West.
``I have initiated what I call the Four C's as the
cornerstone of my tenure: Consultation, Communication, and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. At the heart
of the Four C's is the belief that for conservation to be
successful, the government must involve the people who live and
work on the land.''--Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior.
water 2025: preventing crisis and conflict in the west
Water 2025 is based on realities that will shape, if not control,
policy level water supply decisions over the next 25 years.
WATER 2025 REALITIES
1. Explosive Population growth is occurring in some of the driest
areas of the West. Likewise, there is a substantial demand for water to
attain the goals of the Endangered Species Act or environmental
restoration programs in some of these arid regions.
2. Over the next 25 years, the demand for water for people, tribes,
farms, and the environment will exceed the available supply in many
basins in the West.
3. If we are to meet the demand for additional water supplies in
the future, existing water supply facilities must be maintained and
modernized so they will continue to provide the water and power that is
a part of the existing inventory. Otherwise, we will be moving
backwards instead of forwards.
4. Unlike the last century, water supply crises in the next 25
years in the West will not be drought-driven and limited to local and
regional impacts. Unless we act now, water supply crises will occur in
normal years and affect economies and resources of national and
international significance.
5. Most solutions to water supply crises, regardless of whether
they are institutional in nature or include new or additional
infrastructure, take years, if not decades to implement. Endless
process, without actual progress towards implementing solutions that
work, simply guarantees that there will be fewer options to deal with
the inevitable crises.
6. In some areas, the development of alternative water supplies
such as brackish and seawater desalinization can reduce the pressure on
surface water supplies.
7. There is no broad support for extremist positions on water
policy that would destroy irrigated agriculture, ignore tribal water
needs, prevent economic growth and development, or fail to protect the
environment. The question then becomes one of how to provide for the
shift of water between competing uses. At a conceptual level the debate
is between the use of governmental authority to redefine rights or
reallocate the use of water, or the use of market-based mechanisms to
meet unmet or emerging needs.
Water 2025 is based on principles that must be recognized if we are
to minimize or avoid water supply related crises.
WATER 2025 PRINCIPLES
1. Solutions must be based on and recognize interstate compacts and
United States Supreme Court decrees that allocate water among states,
water rights established under state and federal law, tribal water
rights, and contracts for the use of water.
2. The implementation of water monitoring, measuring, conservation
and management technologies will provide some of the most cost-
effective gains in our ability to meet the demand for water in the
future.
3. The attainment of economic, social, and environmental goals
relating to water supply requires long-term stability that is more
likely to be provided by collaborative solutions than by litigation.
4. Market-based tools that rely on willing buyer willing seller
transactions are far more likely to provide stability and avoid
conflict than are regulatory or litigation-based alternatives for
meeting unmet and emerging needs for water.
Water 2025 proposes not rhetoric, but pragmatic, reality-based
tools that have been tested in the crucible of the real world.
WATER 2025 TOOLS
1. Water conservation and efficiency. The increased use of simple
tools like water measurement structures, automated control structures,
and computer-based system monitoring can allow water users to either
stretch their water supplies further or make part of their supplies
available on a willing seller-willing buyer basis for otherwise unmet
demands.
2. Markets. Explosive population growth and the emergence of the
demand for water for environmental restoration and attainment of the
goals of the Endangered Species Act will typically define the extent
and severity of water supply-related conflicts. The experience of the
Klamath basin in 2001 provides an example of the consequences of an
attempt to use regulatory mechanisms to reallocate water from existing
uses to emerging needs. The value of market-based approaches as an
alternative is proven by the success of CalFed, the new Klamath water
bank, the operation of the Central Valley Project in California, the
ag-to-urban transfers in Southern California, and the 50 year-old water
market in Northern Colorado.
3. Collaboration. When it comes to water, people, farms, and the
environment all need certainty in order to plan for and meet long-term
objectives. Endless litigation rarely, if ever, achieves this goal. In
particular, long-term or multi-year Biological Opinions under the
Endangered Species Act provide the predictability that is necessary in
order to make the rational decisions and investments that are required
to provide water for people, water for farms, and water for the
environment.
4. Technology. In some areas, demands on limited surface water
supplies can be reduced through the development of alternative water
supplies. A range of alternative water supply technologies exist,
including desalinization, advanced water treatment and reuse, and water
recycling. Interior will seek to facilitate the implementation of
desalination and advanced water treatment through improved interagency
coordination of research and focused investment to areas most needing
planning support.
5. System Optimization. While it is clear that in some regions it
will be necessary to develop new surface water supplies and
infrastructure, the fiscal, legal, and political hurdles to the
development of significant new supplies make it imperative that
existing water supply infrastructure be fully utilized within the
framework of existing treaties, interstate compacts, water rights, and
contracts.
FY 2004
As a first step in implementing Water 2025, Secretary Norton has
announced the creation of a Challenge Grant Program. The request for
proposals is now available on the Water 2025 website (www.doi.gov/
water2025). We have identified for this program $4.0 million of the
$8.4 million appropriated in Fiscal Year 2004 for the Western Water
Initiative. The Western Water Initiative is the first step toward Water
2025. This program targets irrigation and water districts in the West
who are willing to leverage their money and resources with the Federal
government on projects that make more efficient and effective use of
existing water supplies through water conservation, efficiency and
water markets.
Projects will be selected through a competitive process that
focuses on achieving the outcomes identified in Water 2025,
specifically conservation, efficiency, and water marketing.. We will
accept proposals until April 8 of this year and award the grants by
July, with implementation commencing around the first of August.
A grant program on water treatment is also underway in FY 2004.
Wastewater, salty and other impaired water can be purified to increase
their utility. Water 2025's goal is to significantly aid technological
advances and identify new supplies. Reclamation can facilitate research
to reduce the high costs that slow adoption of new water treatment
technologies, such as desalination technologies. Proposals that
demonstrate ways to help avoid crises and conflict over water supplies
in the West will be selected through the current competitive process in
the Reclamation Science and Technology Program.
The Bureau of Reclamation is also collaborating with the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District [$1.750 million] to identify water
conservation efficiency improvements projects, such as flow measurement
devices, data collection and water management stations, diversion dam
rehabilitation, and other tools identified in Water 2025.
Rounding out the FY 2004 Western Water Initiative funding provided
by the Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation is working closely with Ohio
View Consortium [$1.0 million] and Desert Research Institute [$1.0
million] to match their capabilities with the need for new technology
to address future water supply problems in the West.
FY 2005
In keeping with the spirit of Secretary Norton's 4C's--Cooperation,
Communication and Consultation in the service of Conservation, Interior
agencies, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, plan to
closely monitor the western basins experiencing drought conditions. We
will also continue to coordinate existing programs with other federal
agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers and Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Other activities highlighted in the FY 2005 budget request that are
designed to address the water problems in the West are as follows:
Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($25.0 million). This
funding would provide for on-the-ground initiatives to improve water
supplies to meet agricultural, tribal, wildlife refuge, and
environmental needs in the Klamath Basin and to improve fish passage
and habitat. This is part of a $67.2 million Department of the Interior
request spread across several bureaus, focused on making immediate on-
the-ground impacts. The Department, in consultation with the Klamath
River Basin Federal Working Group, is developing a long-term resolution
to conflict in the Basin that will provide water to farmers and tribes
while protecting and enhancing the health of fish populations, and
meeting other water needs, such as those of the adjacent National
Wildlife Refuge.
Middle Rio Grande ($18.0 million). This request continues funding
in support of the Endangered Species Collaborative Program. In
addition, the request continues funding for acquiring supplemental
water, channel maintenance, and pursuing government-to-government
consultations with Pueblos and Tribes. Finally, the funding would
continue efforts that support the protection and contribute to the
recovery of the Rio Grande silvery minnow and southwestern willow
flycatcher.
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($52.0 million). This
request includes $52.0 million for the continued construction of Ridges
Basin Dam and Durango Pumping Plant and pre-construction activities for
Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit, utility
relocations, and project support activities.
Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and
Washington ($17.5 million) addresses the implementation of Reasonable
and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) included in two Biological Opinions
issued in December 2000. The FY 2005 funding would address
significantly increased regional coordination, off-site mitigation
activities in selected sub-basins to offset hydrosystem impacts, and
continue research, monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Rural Water ($67.5 million). The funding request for rural water
projects emphasizes a commitment to completing ongoing municipal,
rural, and industrial systems. Funding is included for Mni Wiconi, Mid-
Dakota, Garrison, Lewis and Clark and Perkins County projects. Funding
required for Mid-Dakota is sufficient to complete the project. I am
pleased to announce that the Department's Rural Water supply program
legislative proposal was sent to Congress on March 3. The program
established under this proposed legislation will allow Reclamation, the
Department, and the Administration to provide a much needed and
demanded service to the American people in the Reclamation States,
while exercising the type of project oversight and development that has
been lacking in some of the individually authorized projects we have
seen in the past.
Hydropower Direct Financing ($30.0 million). The FY 2005 budget
proposes to finance the costs of operation and maintenance of certain
Reclamation hydropower facilities directly from receipts collected by
the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of electricity.
Safety of Dams ($64.0 million). The safety and reliability of
Reclamation dams is one of Reclamation's highest priorities.
Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900
and 1950, and 90 percent of those dams were built before the advent of
current state-of-the-art foundation treatment, and before filter
techniques were incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage.
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ($54.7 million) this
request includes funds for the CVP Restoration Fund and is expected to
be offset by discretionary receipts totaling $46.4 million collected
from project beneficiaries under provisions of Section 3407(d) of the
Act. These funds will be used for habitat restoration, improvement and
acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley Project area of California. The requested level and the
amount of offsets are determined by formulas contained in the 1992
authorizing legislation.
California Bay-Delta Restoration. ($15.0 million) The funds would
be used consistent with a commitment to find long-term solutions in
improving water quality; habitat and ecological functions; and water
supply reliability; while reducing the risk of catastrophic breaching
of Delta levees.
In addition to these activities in Reclamation's FY 2005 budget,
the USGS is proposing two new budget initiatives related to Water 2025.
The first is a $1 million water availability and use initiative
focusing on water data and information needed to help communities
address critical and increasingly complex water-availability issues.
This initiative proposes work over a 5 year period, based on the USGS
Future Science Directions and the USGS Report to Congress, Concepts for
National Assessment of Water Availability and Use. The second is a $2.8
million initiative focused on improving the understanding of two
endangered sucker species in Upper Klamath Lake and how their survival
is affected by changes in water quality, natural climatic cycles, lake-
level management, and habitat for spawning and rearing.
The FY 2005 budget for the USGS Water Program proposes $202.7
million to continue water resources work. This includes an increase of
$1.4 million for research into the water quality in the Klamath Basin.
In addition, $1 million is proposed for implementation of a new five-
year initiative concerned with water availability and use as part of
Water 2025.
In FY 2005, the USGS will focus research on the Klamath River basin
in southern Oregon and northern California, where water supply is
currently inadequate to meet demands for irrigating 250,000 acres of
farmland, sustaining habitat in several critical wildlife refuges, and
maintaining in-stream flows and lake levels in order to protect three
threatened and endangered fish species. In the Klamath Basin, where
water is in extremely short supply, it is particularly important that
seasonal runoff forecasts are very accurate. In this regard, USGS is
working closely with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
Bureau of Reclamation, to improve seasonal flow forecasts by
incorporating ground-water conditions into the forecast model. The FY
2005 budget requests $1.4 million dedicated to improving the quality
and quantity of water entering Agency and Upper Klamath Lakes, to model
hydrodynamics and heat transport in the Lakes, and to monitor nutrient
loadings and algal ecology. An additional $1.4 million is requested for
biological studies to focus on the ecology of two endangered sucker
species in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. This information will improve
the forecasts of resource-management decisions being made by
Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Klamath Tribes. The total USGS FY 2005 request for Klamath
studies is $3.7 million, a $2.8 million increase over 2004.
The total Administration request for Klamath is $105 million,
including $67.2 million contributed by Interior Bureaus.
In related studies with California's North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the USGS has documented the data needs for
water-quality models of the Klamath River between Upper Klamath Lake
and the Pacific Ocean. The models would be used to develop the total
maximum daily load (TMDLs) for temperature, nutrients, and dissolved
oxygen, the role of natural and anthropogenic source loadings for
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. A key consideration is
protection of fall-run salmon, including the endangered Coho, in the
Lower Klamath River.
There is a heightened need for using science and technology to
understand and manage our Nation's water resources. The USGS and
Reclamation will build upon their partnership on the Watershed and
River System Management Program. This program has already resulted in
models that improve the efficiency of water system operations. The USGS
provides the science related to atmospheric and watershed processes,
while the Reclamation provides the engineering expertise related to
river, reservoir and irrigation management. This partnership has
resulted in a coupling of USGS watershed models with Reclamation
operations models.
The FY 2005 budget requests I just highlighted demonstrate the
Department's commitment in meeting the water and power needs of the
West in a fiscally responsible manner.
Finally, I would like to end my testimony by sharing with the
Committee some of our accomplishments in addressing the water supply
problems in the West.
On October 16th, 2003, Secretary Norton celebrated the signing of
the historic Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement with
representatives of all of the Colorado River basin states, the San
Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation District, the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Coachella
Valley Water District. This Agreement marked the resolution of a 75
year old dispute over the allocation of California's share of the
Colorado River. California has agreed to take specific, incremental
steps that will reduce its over-reliance on the Colorado River water in
the next 14 years, allowing the state to live within its authorized
annual share of 4.4 million acre-feet. The agreement allows the six
other Colorado River Basin States to protect their ability to use their
Colorado River allocations to meet future needs.
In the lower Colorado River Basin, despite the fourth consecutive
year of substantial drought on the Colorado River in 2003, Reclamation
delivered Arizona, California and Nevada their full basic annual
apportionment of river water. The United States' obligation to deliver
1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to Mexico was also met.
Since the completion of Hoover Dam in 1935, Reclamation has delivered
to each of these states and to Mexico, at a minimum, their basic annual
apportionment of Colorado River water, despite several periodic and
severe droughts.
Many projects, such as the Central Valley Project (CVP) in
California, are operated to address different demands simultaneously.
For example, in 2003, the CVP made available about 7,200,000 acre-feet
of water for agriculture, 540,000 acre-feet for municipal and
industrial water users, 400,000 acre-feet for wildlife refuges, and
800,000 acre-feet to protect and restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta
fishery, as required by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
The Department negotiated two agreements (Conservation Water
Agreement and the Emergency Drought Water Agreement) with the State of
New Mexico and other entities, and acquired about 90,000 acre feet of
water from willing contractors to provide supplemental water flows for
the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow.
Interior agencies work with other Federal agencies, and State, and
local governments, partners, and stakeholders, to determine innovative
ways to address unmet demands.
In 2003, Reclamation rented storage water and natural flows
from willing irrigation districts and individuals in the Snake,
Boise, Payette, Lemhi and John Day Basins of Idaho and Oregon.
This resulted in a win-win situation irrigators received
economic support in return for the water they provided to
enhance river flows for endangered salmon.
Reclamation developed streamflow simulation models and water
quality simulation models for the Weber River System in the
Ogden, Utah area, and the Ashley and Brush Creeks which are
tributary to the Green and Colorado Rivers. These models work
together to enable water managers to simulate and analyze
proposed water management scenarios to better meet existing
water demands and meet future increased demands.
Reclamation is also exploring ways to enhance the current water
supply.
With cost-sharing from the Colorado River Basin States,
Reclamation has expended $45 million on salinity control
projects during 2001-2003. The cost effectiveness of these
projects has improved dramatically to about $30/year/ton of
salt controlled. This is nearly a three-fold reduction in cost
per ton of salt removed compared to earlier projects at $80 per
ton. It is estimated that these projects will control nearly
500,000 tons/year of salt from reaching the Colorado River.
Working with the State of Utah, local governments, and water
districts, Reclamation has reduced the total phosphorus loading
into Deer Creek Reservoir by more than 50 percent. The largest
source of drinking water to the Wasatch Front from the Provo
River was very contaminated and Deer Creek Reservoir was
dominated by toxin, taste, and odor producing blue green algae.
The 1994 completion of Jordanelle Dam provided an opportunity
to clean up some of the problems. For the past 2 years, even
with major drought and water shortages, Deer Creek Reservoir
has provided the cleanest water to the Wasatch Front since it
was constructed.
Throughout 2003, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the
direction of the Department of the Interior, helped balance the
needs of water users and endangered species that depend on the
Rio Grande for their survival. The two endangered species are
the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the Southwestern willow
flycatcher. Efforts to preserve and protect the species
occurred in the following areas: water acquisition and
management, habitat restoration, listed species population
management, fish passage, and water quality improvement.
In 2003, Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Bureau of Indian Affairs continued participation in the Middle
Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program, and
cooperation on ESA, National Environmental Policy Act and other
environmental compliance requirements. These agencies continued
government-to-government consultations with the pueblos and
tribes living in the Rio Grande Basin.
Reclamation and Collaborative Program participants are
restoring the Rio Grande to a wider, shallower channel with a
sandy bottom, and removing invasive plant species from the
bosque and replacing them with cottonwoods and willows to
benefit the endangered species. Seven projects covering 415
acres have been completed, and an additional seven projects
covering 413 acres will soon be under way. Four pueblos are
participating in these restoration efforts.
Reclamation has supported activities aimed at increasing the
population of the silvery minnow including: developing a master
plan for management, increasing the numbers of silvery minnow
through captive breeding and rearing (propagation) and re-
introducing (augmentation) silvery minnows into the Rio Grande,
monitoring silvery minnow populations in the wild, and rescuing
fish from dry river reaches and moving them to other parts of
the river when appropriate.
Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bonneville
Power Administration submitted their first ``check-in'' report
to NOAA Fisheries on October 1, 2003, as required by the
Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion of 2000.
The three agencies stated that the overall implementation of
the Biological Opinion (BO) is on track and that the status of
the Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead listed under the
Endangered Species Act is improved over the conditions prior to
the BO three years ago. The 2003 Check-In Report acknowledges
that good ocean conditions are a major contributor to the good
returns, but improved fish passage at Columbia and Snake River
dams and better habitat, hatchery and harvest practices are
also contributing. Reclamation's primary contribution to this
success has been working with private landowners to remove or
modify in-stream barriers to migrating fish, such as temporary
gravel diversion dams.
Reclamation completed the A Canal fish screen on the Klamath
Project in southern Oregon. The fish screen facility is a key
requirement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological
Opinion to recover endangered Shortnose and Lost River Suckers
in Upper Klamath Lake. During a typical irrigation season, the
A Canal transports nearly 250,000 acre-feet of irrigation water
used on Klamath Project farms. Without these fish screens,
water deliveries could have been susceptible to cutbacks to
prevent fish losses.
A reserve of water was made available for release down the
Trinity River during the summer of 2003 in case it was needed
to prevent a reoccurrence of conditions that led to fish
mortalities in the Klamath River the previous year.
The Department, the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and
Colorado, along with Nebraska water users, continue to work on
a Cooperative Recovery Program for Platte River endangered
species. The Department funded a review by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) of the science and conclusions which underpin
the need for a recovery program for the four threatened and
endangered species that use the Platte River. An expedited
schedule of review by NAS was negotiated so it will not delay a
Record of Decision on the Platte EIS by the end of calendar
year 2004.
On May 19, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the Kansas
v. Nebraska settlement which was filed with the Special Master
December 16, 2002. While Reclamation was not a party to the
suit, it was assigned by the court as amicus curiae (friend of
the court) and was a full partner in helping successfully
negotiate the settlement.
Reclamation signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
San Diego River Park Foundation and the City of San Diego for
Phase I of the San Diego River Restoration Project. This
project, to which Reclamation is contributing $500,000, will
upgrade natural riparian habitat, improve water quality and
enhance recreational opportunities along the river. It also may
enhance groundwater quality and improve water quality for
downstream recreational users and others.
Reclamation began the Los Angeles Basin County Watershed
Study, which will help determine the practicability of
recharging urban stormwater runoff; develop a stakeholder-
supported strategy to identify locations for projects to
recharge water throughout the basin; develop tools that will
help decision-makers determine where, when and how to recharge
urban runoff; and develop cost-sharing agreements among
agencies benefiting from the project.
Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service formulated a plan
for river management on the Pecos, resulting in a non-jeopardy
opinion for the threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner.
A fish passage was constructed in the Public Service Company
of New Mexico diversion dam on the San Juan River. The passage
re-linked critical habitat in the upper San Juan River basin.
The passage was an immediate success: endangered fish and other
native fish species began using the facility within the first
month of operation. This effort was made possible through the
cooperation of the Navajo Nation, Public Service Company of New
Mexico, and the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program.
Reclamation continues to work with partners through habitat joint
ventures conducted under programs such as the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan including:
Working with the Yakama Nation to restore wetlands on the
Yakama Reservation;
Partnering with Ducks Unlimited, the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Intermountain West
Joint Venture to create and enhance wetlands along the
Winchester Wasteway in the Columbia Basin;
and Participating in a joint venture with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Ducks Unlimited to create a brood marsh at
the Hansen Waterfowl Management Area as part of the Prairie
Potholes Joint Venture in North Dakota.
Aquatic invasive species clog canals and waterways, causing
widespread water delivery problems. Salt Cedar (Tamarisk) is a
particularly harmful invasive plant. In 2003, Reclamation started an
aggressive salt cedar control program, the largest and most successful
eradication program in New Mexico, along the Pecos River. The
Department is also co-sponsoring a Tamarisk Workshop in Albuquerque, NM
later this month. Senator Domenici, Senator Campbell, Senator Bingaman
and other members of the Senate are to be commended for their
legislative efforts to address this problem.
Reclamation continues to work under the Reclamation States Drought
Relief Act of 1991 to respond to drought conditions in Western States.
During FY 2003, Reclamation:
Allowed storage of non-project water in Reclamation
facilities.
Provided emergency assistance for Indian and non-Indian
domestic water supplies in Montana, New Mexico and Arizona.
Purchased water for endangered species requirements under
the Endangered Species Act, thus allowing deliveries to
continue to contractors.
Reclamation operates and maintains 58 hydroelectric powerplants
that provide about 10 percent of the electric power in the Western
United States. Reclamation plants generate nearly $1 billion in power
revenues annually and lead the hydropower industry with low costs and
high reliability.
Many of Reclamation's projects are home to recreation
opportunities. Visitors to Reclamation lakes and facilities contribute
about $6 billion a year to local and regional economies and provide
some 27,000 non-Federal jobs. Reclamation continues to work with other
Federal land management agencies, state, county, and local partners to
develop, manage and cost-share recreation projects.
The Department also contributes to resolution of drought and water
supply issues in the west through the scientific work of the USGS.
Examples of this include the recently completed Middle Rio Grande
ground water study, the southwest ground water initiative (which has
significantly advanced capabilities to estimate ground water recharge),
improved real-time coverage of surface-water and ground-water
conditions (through Waterwatch and Groundwater Watch), the recently
completed study of the impact of irrigation in the Methow Valley of
Washington, new hydrologic and river systems models of the Yakima basin
in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, and scientific
leadership of the upper San Pedro River partnership in southern
Arizona.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today. I
will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Bingaman, did you want to comment?
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, since I am late, let me
just put my opening statement in the record, and we will go
ahead and I will just ask questions when the opportunity
arises.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator From New Mexico
Good morning. I want to Join in welcoming the witnesses to today's
hearing on the important topic of water supply in the arid West. We all
know that the West has been faced with a severe, multi-year drought. I
understand that the focus of this hearing is status and trends in water
use and needs in the West. It is crucial that we ensure that there will
be water supplies available in the future for our communities, for our
ranches and farms, and for the environment.
I would like to register a note of concern this morning. The
Administration is widely touting its ``Water 2025'' initiative--and
it's my view that the initiative, at least in concept, is worthy of
support. The Secretary has conducted a series of well-publicized
meetings throughout the West, seeking input of stakeholders on future
needs in an effort to avoid future crises. I certainly endorse these
collaborative efforts.
Unfortunately, while the Administration proposes an $11.6 million
increase in Water 2025 for the Bureau of Reclamation, it is also
proposing over $25 million in cuts from other Reclamation programsthat
support conservation, efficiency, collaboration, and technology
initiatives. On top of that, the budget proposes a 64 percent cut for
Title16 water reclamation and reuse projects, despite the endorsement
of water reuse in Water 2025. These cuts represent a lack of meaningful
commitment to address the West's water issues, and in my view render
Water 2025 an exercise in form over substance.
Moreover, cuts in Reclamation's budget could have serious
repercussions in New Mexico. Drought and competing demands for water,
including endangered species needs, have resulted in water use in the
Middle Rio Grande basin degenerating into an annual rite of crisis
management. Addressing this situation requires compliance with a Fish &
Wildlife Service 10-year biological opinion that Interior estimates
will cost $230 million. Yet Reclamation's 2005 budget reduces funding
for ESA compliance activities by $9.5 million from FY 2004 levels. At
the requested FY2005 level of $5.9 million, we can expect to satisfy
the biological opinion in no less than 30 years. The Secretary recently
issued a press release stating that ``[t]he issues in the Middle Rio
Grande Basin have been a priority since the beginning of my tenure as
Secretary. . . .'' My only response is that actions speak louder than
words.
I would also like to focus on the issue of groundwater depletion in
the West--and in particular, the depletion of the groundwater resources
of the High Plains Aquifer which underlies eight states, including a
portion of eastern New Mexico. This aquifer provides water for
irrigation and also for drinking water supplies for several communities
in my State. It is being depleted at an alarming rate. For example,
areas of the aquifer in New Mexico and Texas had from 50 to 175 feet of
water-level decline from 1950 to 1980, and more than 60 feet of water-
level decline from 1980 to 1999.
Last Congress, I was pleased that the Farm Bill included an
initiative to provide funding for an incentive program to encourage the
use of more efficient irrigation equipment and less water-intensive
cropping patterns. This year, the Senate has passed legislation
introduced by Senators Brownback, Domenici and myself, to provide
enhanced mapping, characterization and modeling with respect to the
groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer. I hope that we will
see this legislation enacted into public law.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing. I also want to
state my appreciation for your willingness to include a representative
of the Western States and the Tribes at today's hearing. I look forward
to the witnesses' testimony.
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman, one of the thoughts that I
expressed prior to your arrival was that if you look out in our
State and some of the adjoining States that we get to see, one
of the biggest shortages is the lack of any basic resource for
small, rural towns and their water needs and sewage needs.
Things are just literally falling apart. These towns have to
grow. They are growing. They do not have any money. There are
no revolving funds, and I just wonder when we are finally going
to come around to doing that.
I myself keep reading that the Government wants to, but
everything I see is too minuscule for the size of the problem.
I might solicit your help in putting together a major effort
and just see what happens to it, where we ask the Federal
Government to put more than a few billion dollars in a
revolving fund so that the States and localities can draw on
it. You and I could spend 15 minutes and tick off 25 little
communities in our State that there is no way they are going to
get anywhere because they do not have any money and nobody has
any money to give them and we have no program. And without
water, they are in pretty bad shape.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for your comments. Now, let us just
move back this way and we will talk to Brigadier General
Grisoli, Commander of the Northwestern Division, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. General.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM. T. GRISOLI, COMMANDER,
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Grisoli. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Good morning.
General Grisoli. It is an honor for me today to testify
before you on behalf of the Corps of Engineers on the matter of
water supply in the Western States.
The committee has asked the Corps to address four issues
regarding drought in the Western States: first, the drought
conditions in the Western States over the last 4 or 5 years and
projections used by the Corps to prepare for future operations;
second, how the data may change predictions for the potential
of floods and water flows; third, the drought's impact on
navigation and flood control and other reservoir water
management responsibilities in the Western States; and finally,
activities to alleviate drought impacts on water supply and
other Corps responsibilities.
The Western States have been in drought since 2000, and the
Southwestern part of the Nation has been in continual drought
for the past few decades.
Although the Corps' primary mission at reservoir projects
is flood control, the Corps, to the extent permissible under
our project authorities, attempts to manage the projects in a
manner which protects water supplies and the environment.
The continuing drought has caused reservoir levels
throughout the region to be severely depleted. This has
negatively impacted all project purposes except for flood
control, which is positively impacted because of the increased
capability to store flood waters.
The management of the water stored in all Corps reservoir
projects is guided by the congressionally authorized purposes
set out for each project and the requirements of other
legislation such as the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered
Species Act requires Federal agencies ensure that their actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of their critical
habitat.
While the Corps does not attempt to make long-term drought
forecasts, we develop annual reservoir control plans based on
models that predict stream flow and reservoir levels and work
with other State and Federal agencies to evaluate conditions.
The Corps collaborates with meteorological experts at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make use of
the most updated research and use that information to help
operate our reservoir projects.
To help make decisions about reservoir storage and releases
for multi-purpose projects and environmental needs in the
Columbia Basin, the Corps relies on the Northwest River
Forecast Center to prepare water supply and streamflow
forecasts. The Northwest River Forecast Center is part of the
National Weather Service.
The Corps also relies upon the Rocky Mountain North
snowpack data collected by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service to facilitate runoff forecasts in the Missouri River
basin.
In the Colorado River basin, the Corps is a part of a
multi-agency team called the Colorado River Forecast Service
Technical Committee. This committee of technical experts shares
technological advances and expertise to track and evaluate
conditions on the Colorado River.
On the Rio Grande, a joint agency water operations model
has been developed and implemented to manage water supply,
flood control, and environmental purposes. The Corps is working
very closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to use this model
to develop annual operating plans that reflect forecasts for
reservoirs and river operations.
Many of the reservoirs in the California Central Valley are
multi-purpose with the varied owners and operators. During
flood operations the Corps has the responsibility for managing
the water stored in a designated flood control space. The U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and private owners, on the other hand,
are responsible for allocating the water reserved for municipal
and irrigation purposes and stored below the flood control
pool. The Corps, with cooperation from our partners, uses our
latest hydrologic and reservoir simulation computer modeling to
evaluate water management decisions pertaining to flood control
and environmental issues.
Lastly in southern California, in addition to managing for
our multi-purpose needs, daily reservoir operations are
designated to also provide for groundwater recharge.
Now, as you have heard today, drought throughout the
Western States place extreme challenges on the Corps' ability
to meet all the congressionally authorized purposes and comply
with the Endangered Species Act. To address drought conditions,
the Corps includes contingencies for drought in our water
management plans that seek to balance these competing
requirements.
In addition, the Corps, in collaboration with our partners,
monitors and alleviates other impacts of drought to the
community within our existing authority. Throughout the western
region, we partner with Federal, State, and local agencies and
stakeholders to maximize project operation for water supply and
other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to
provide you this initial statement. I am prepared to now answer
your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Grisoli follows:]
Prepared Statement of BG William T. Grisoli, Commander, Northwestern
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, and distinguished guests, I am
Brigadier General William T. Grisoli, the Commander of the Northwestern
Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). I am honored to
be here today to testify on the matter of Water Supply in the Western
United States.
You asked that we address four issues regarding drought in the
Western United States: first, the drought conditions in the Western
United States over the last 4-5 years and projections used by the Corps
to prepare for future operations; second, how these data may change
predictions or the potential of floods and water flows; third, the
impact on navigation and flood control and other responsibilities
(reservoir water management) of the drought and related issues in the
Western United States; and, finally, activities to alleviate drought
impacts on water supply and other Corps responsibilities. The following
provides more specific information related to these four issues for
each of the following river basins in the Western United States: the
Colorado, Rio Grande, Sacramento, and San Joaquin River basins, and the
watersheds associated with the Colorado Aqueduct of the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California and the Los Angeles Aqueducts of
the City of LA Department of Water and Power, in the South Pacific
Division of the Corps and the Columbia and Missouri River basins in the
Northwestern Division of the Corps.
The management of the water stored in all Corps reservoir projects
is guided by the Congressionally authorized purposes set out for each
project and the requirements of other legislation such as the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any Federally listed threatened or endangered
species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their
critical habitat.
SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION BASINS
The arid west is the fastest growing region in the United States.
The coastal rivers are home to threatened and/or endangered fisheries
that require a certain level of flow to sustain them. This coupled with
the demands for water by the agricultural industry that presents us all
with a great challenge. The southwestern part of the nation has
experienced drought for much of the past few decades.
Although the Corps primary mission at our reservoir projects is
flood control, the Corps, to the extent permissible under our project
authorities, attempts to manage these projects in a manner that
protects water supplies. We sometimes perform this balancing act in a
non-traditional way by holding back water after rainstorms or
snowmelts, and releasing it at a slow enough rate such that it seeps it
into the ground for use later in the year when it may be more valuable.
Colorado River Basin
In the Colorado River basin the Corps is involved in partnerships
with other Federal water resource agencies. For example, the Corps is
part of a multi-agency team called the Colorado River Forecast Service
Technical Committee. Other Federal agencies on that committee include
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the United State
Geological Survey (USGS), the National Weather Service (NWS), the
Western Area Power Administration of the Department of Energy (WAPA),
and the upper and lower Colorado basins regions of the United States
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). This committee of technical experts
shares technological advances and expertise to track and evaluate
conditions on the Colorado River to balance the national interests of
water supply, energy needs, environmental interests, and flood control.
The Corps is also teaming with meteorological experts at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to make use of
the most updated research, to relate to them our technical needs, and
to use that information to help our sponsors study new ways to operate
our reservoir projects that can help reduce the impacts of water
shortage.
Rio Grande River Basin
The Rio Grande basin in Colorado and New Mexico is generally
considered to be in the midst of a long-term drought. This region
experienced extreme drought conditions during 2002 and 2003 causing
reservoir storage levels to be severely depleted. The snowmelt runoff
forecasts for 2004 are much brighter with runoff forecasts in the range
of 70 to 100 percent of average. This runoff combined with water stored
under the Emergency Drought Water Agreement will assure sufficient
water to meet the 2003 Biological Opinion flow requirements to sustain
the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. The multi-agency agreement is
part of a 3-year deviation agreed upon to provide water for the
endangered minnow.
The Corps is actively involved in the comprehensive water
management and related planning activities, where we have multi-purpose
reservoirs. On the Rio Grande, a joint-agency water-operations model,
the ``Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model'' or ``URGWOM'' has been
developed and implemented to help guide multi-agency operational
decision-making. This tool is used to support studies related to water
accounting and annual operating plans for the Rio Grande from the
Colorado/New Mexico border to El Paso, Texas. The Corps is working very
closely with the USBR to develop an Annual Operating Plan, using
URGWOM, which reflects forecasted reservoir and river operations. We
are also working with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District, the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos, and other
stakeholders to provide the most efficient water management possible.
URGWOM is also providing the capability to analyze 40-years of key flow
and storage projections as we examine numerous alternatives within
existing authorities for optimal future water management. The results
of this study will be presented in the ``Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations (URGWOPS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)''.
The Albuquerque District of the Corps is a joint lead agency in
both of these efforts, providing the funding and human resources to
complete them, along with providing the model development site and the
center of activities. The modeling brings together the operational
knowledge and the respective interests of the agencies, to allow
detailed examinations of the effects of varying operations. It allows
the collaborating agencies to coordinate their water management during
drought conditions, and regulate the various projects to preserve
listed endangered species such as the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, while
supplying water to meet existing public needs. URGWOM is a very
important technical tool that will significantly contribute to our
understanding of the effects of water management decisions and improve
our capability to respond to the needs of the various stakeholders in
the desert southwest. It is a great example of effective partnering
that will allow the Corps to provide the best possible public service.
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
In California's Central Valley the water contained in the
reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Corps is generally managed,
but is not allocated by the Corps. Specifically, during flood control
operations the Corps has the responsibility for managing the waters
contained in the designated flood control space. At many Corps projects
in the Western United States, the USBR is responsible for allocating
water reserved for irrigation purposes and contained below the flood
control pool.
The Corps typically determines the appropriate flood control volume
required for each project. This volume is established during the
planning and design of each project before a project is approved by
Congress for construction.
In concert with operations for flood control, certain flood control
projects are also operated for other project purposes including
environmental considerations. For instance, releases from flood control
storage are made at certain ramping rates, are designed to allow
operation of these projects for flood control while ameliorating
particular environmental concerns such as those associated with
endangered species.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins Comprehensive Study
(Comp Study) included the development of a hydrologic computer model to
facilitate the water management decision-making process. The Comp Study
evaluated a large number of operational alternatives for several flood
control projects utilizing this model, which was developed specifically
for the study. The simulation model was developed using the Corps' HEC-
5 reservoir simulation computer software. These analyses investigated
the change in flood control benefits associated with potential changes
in particular operational criteria for either a single reservoir, or
combinations of reservoirs. These analyses were intended solely to
evaluate flood control operations in the Central Valley and provide
``what-if'' scenarios pertaining to flood control, not water supply.
There have also been computer simulations completed to investigate
the benefits of conjunctive-use technologies and additional off-stream
storage to further reduce the impacts of flooding in certain locations.
Current conditions provide some hope for this year. A series of
heavy winter storms 2 weeks ago improved the Sierra Nevada Mountain
snow depths to above normal levels, with a month remaining to improve
on that snowpack. Snow depths in the northern Sierra's from Mount
Shasta to the Feather River was at 141 percent of normal, with around 3
feet of water equivalent. The central Sierra's, from the Yuba River and
Lake Tahoe basin to the Merced River, was at 112 percent of normal, and
from the San Joaquin River south the snowpack was at 108 percent of
normal. Across the entire range the depth was 127 percent of average,
an increase from last month's measurement of 115 percent. More than a
third of the state's drinking and irrigation water comes from Sierra
runoff from snowpack, which also powers hydroelectric plants that
produce about a quarter of California's power.
Colorado Aqueduct Of The Metropolitan Water District Of Southern
California and The Los Angeles Aqueducts Of The City of Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power
In southern California daily reservoir operations are designed to
provide groundwater recharge through the use of buffer pools. This
saves water districts tens of millions of dollars annually ($12 million
per year at Whittier Narrows Dam alone), and is an important supplement
to water imported via the USBR's Central Valley Project, the State
Department of Water Resource's State Water Project, the Colorado
Aqueduct of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the
Los Angeles Aqueducts of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power. Also, in the Central Valley, daily reservoir operations are
keyed to forecasted water needs, snowpack, and runoff forecasts to
improve benefits derived from those reservoirs. Planning studies are
also underway to increase seasonal water storage at our `dry' flood
control basins and wet reservoirs, and re-operation studies are
underway to investigate increasing water stored for multipurpose needs.
These studies will need to take into account competing needs for the
available water uses.
Research by NOAA into more accurate and advanced quantitative
precipitation forecasts (QPFs) may further allow maximization of
project operation for water supply. The Corps has partnered with NOAA's
Environmental Technology Laboratory, the Nevada Desert Research
Institute, and the Corps' Hydrologic Engineering Center, in sharing
information on that research.
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION BASINS
Columbia River Basin
The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) in the Columbia
River basin is a very large and extremely complex system designed to
meet multiple uses for a multitude of stakeholders. Operational
decisions are not only designed to meet the many authorized project
uses and other statutory and regulatory requirements, but are also
influenced by and have to accommodate changes in weather and water
supply.
Most of the annual precipitation of the Columbia River basin is
concentrated in the winter months with the bulk of the precipitation
falling in mountainous areas as snow stored in deep snowpack awaiting
the warmth of spring for its release. As a result, winter streamflows
are generally low with high, sustained runoff flows occurring in the
spring and early summer. This Columbia River runoff pattern exemplifies
a major seasonal variation of flow with about 60 percent of the natural
runoff of the Columbia occurring during the months of May, June, and
July. The Columbia has an average annual runoff at the mouth of about
198 million acre-fee (MAF) making it second only to the Missouri-
Mississippi River System in the United States in average annual runoff.
A long-range strategy for the operation of storage reservoirs must
be developed up to six months in advance in order to provide for the
multiple purpose uses of the Columbia River. Embedded within long-range
operational strategies, water managers must respond to changes and
deviations within the operational period. Short duration rain events,
flood events, warm weather, or snowmelt within any sub-basin of the
Columbia River requires water managers to adjust the overall
operational strategy throughout the system. These short duration events
may only last for a week or less, yet they are significant and require
constant coordination and cooperation among state and federal agencies
to best determine how these short duration events may affect the
overall ability to meet the long range operational strategy and
multiple purpose uses of the FCRPS. These events are significant enough
that real-time adaptive management to meet fish needs under the current
Biological Opinion occurs at least every other Wednesday on a formal
basis and often occur on an informal basis each Wednesday to respond to
changing conditions.
The FCRPS operates as a system with some limited flexibility at
individual storage reservoirs to meet immediate needs downstream of
that reservoir. As a system there is a general annual cycle of
operation and strategy for setting priorities.
By August 31 most federal reservoirs are drafted somewhat below
full to augment flow for Federally listed threatened and endangered
fish species. Since September through December is generally a dry
period with limited inflow to the reservoirs, they do not fill
significantly from their summer levels. By November, the USBR's Grand
Coulee Dam begins to release water to meet downstream flow at the Corps
Bonneville Dam to maintain sufficient water in spawning areas for the
Federally listed chum salmon. In January, the Northwest River Forecast
Center develops the region's first water supply forecast. This is the
first official glimpse into the future and whether the spring season
will be a drought or a season of high flow. From January through April
10, the reservoirs operate to refill to flood control draft limits. The
object of this strategy is to have the federal reservoirs as full as
possible to begin releasing water in spring for flow augmentation for
Federally listed fish species in the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The
federal reservoirs then operate to fill by June 30, while augmenting
flow for downstream fish needs, and not causing flooding. In July and
August the federal reservoirs draft to specific elevations to augment
flow for listed fall Chinook salmon. Although no two water years are
alike, the current National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA
Fisheries) Biological Opinion acknowledges and has a plan for
accommodating changing seasonal strategies. The 2000 BiOp is a key
element in the long-range operational strategy for the Columbia River
basin.
The current Biological Opinion (BiOp) provides guidance for the
long-range strategy and basic framework to operate and fine-tune the
complex Columbia River basin system. The BiOp provides guidance to
benefit fish migration, and acknowledges the need to meet other
interdependent objectives. The BiOp considers meeting regional and
local flood control needs, as well as regional power needs. The BiOp
offers a forum to gather information and provide the real-time adaptive
management needed to respond to ever changing water conditions.
Development of the existing BiOp required the concerted effort of
numerous biologists, water managers, and power marketers and took many
years to develop.
The Technical Management Team (TMT) is the regional technical forum
that was developed under the NMFS BiOp to monitor water and fish
conditions and provide the adaptive management mechanism for operation.
The TMT has been meeting since 1996 to provide federal project
operators with recommendations for operations to best meet the needs of
fish. The TMT provides a process to develop consensus recommendations
and reconcile disparate scientific views.
The first official water supply forecast is made in January each
year. This is the region's first indication that a drought may affect
operational needs in that year. Since the reservoirs had been drafted
the previous year for flow augmentation for fish, a drought condition
does not offer enough inflow to reservoirs so they can refill to April
10 flood control elevations per the 2000 Biological Opinion and provide
augmentation water for fish in the spring. During drought years, flow
from April 10 through the end of June will likely be insufficient to
fully satisfy all needs, i.e. meet flow objectives for Federally listed
fish species, and refill reservoirs, and meet other needs in the basin,
such as power generation. If reservoirs are unable to refill by the end
of June, there will be limited water for flow augmentation in July and
August as the federal reservoirs draft for summer flow augmentation for
listed fish.
In the Columbia River basin, 2001 was the most recent year of
drought-like low water supply. The Corps is responsible for the
operation of reservoirs in the Columbia River to meet the
congressionally authorized multiple purposes of the dams. To make
decisions about reservoir storage and releases, the Corps relies on the
Northwest River Forecast Center to prepare water supply forecasts, and
streamflow forecasts. The Northwest River Forecast Center is a part of
the National Weather Service. The projections prepared by the Northwest
River Forecast Center are used to plan future operations. The expected
water supply (runoff) is predicted for the basin using estimated
snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, and the snowpack does not begin to
build significantly until December. The Northwest River Forecast Center
does not begin forecasting water supply until January. There are long-
term tools being developed by some agencies to allow predictions
earlier than January, or to predict water supply several years into the
future, however, they have not yet been accepted as reliable enough to
guide reservoir operations. Reservoir operations in the Columbia River
basin are planned on an annual basis. A relatively small amount of
storage is available in the Columbia basin reservoirs compared to the
annual water supply. There is approximately 40 million acre-fee (MAF)
of reservoir storage as compared to the average annual runoff of 198
MAF (measured at the mouth of the Columbia). About one half of the
storage in the basin is in Canada and is operated by British Columbia
Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro). In the United States, the USBR
and the Corps combined operate about half of the storage, with each
agency operating around a quarter of the total basin storage. There are
several private operators, but the quantity of storage they manage is
very small. Because of the small amount of storage available compared
to water supply, reservoir management is not planned on a multi-year
basis. Storage reservoirs are planned to operate to fill in summer.
When water is plentiful this allows reservoirs to release water in
winter to generate power, and to fill in spring and capture
floodwaters. When water is more limited operations address multiple
needs as established in project authorizations and under the Endangered
Species Act.
The water supply forecasts prepared by the Northwest River Forecast
Center are updated every month from January through June. The Corps
uses the updated water supply forecasts to determine the required flood
control draft at storage reservoirs throughout the Columbia River basin
and assures flood control drafts are met. The Corps oversees all the
reservoirs in the basin, whether they are operated by private or
federal agencies, which includes the Canadian reservoirs. Each month
from January through April, when the water supply forecast is updated,
and the resultant flood control drafts at reservoirs change, the
reservoirs operations and resultant water releases are managed
adaptively to meet future needs. In addition to using the water supply
forecasts, at lease once each week the Northwest River Forecast Center
prepares expected streamflow predictions for the Columbia River basin.
The Corps uses these streamflow predictions to analyze flood potential
during the spring snowmelt season and the system's ability to meet the
multiple purposes uses of the dams. In years of drought, flood risk
because of rapid snowmelt is minimal. Rain events that occur during May
and June when reservoirs are nearly full may cause floods in drought
years.
The Corps managed the navigation channel from the mouth of the
Columbia River inland 453 miles to Lewiston, Idaho. In 2001, to
conserve water, recreational navigation lockages were limited to only a
few times each day. The Corps was prepared, as part of its drought
contingency planning, to transport potable water to meet public health
and welfare needs. The Corps participated in the Interim National
Drought Council Meeting in June. Regional coordination at technical
levels through the executive level was ongoing to assure the multiple
purpose uses of the resource were met. The agencies most heavily
involved were the Corps, the USBR, the Bonneville Power Administration,
NOAA Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife, and representatives from the
States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana and Columbia basin
Tribes. Technical and executive level coordination and cooperation had
been in place prior to the drought and continues through the present.
Regular coordination meetings will continue into the future under the
National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
Missouri River Basin
In contrast to the Columbia basin, the Missouri River basin has a
tremendous amount of storage capacity compared to average annual runoff
because of the existence of the largest system of reservoirs in the
United States. The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (System) is
comprised of six large dams and reservoirs with a total storage
capacity of 73.4 million acre-feet (MAF). Average annual runoff into
the System is around 25 MAF. The six System dams stretch along the main
stem of the Missouri River from Montana through North and South Dakota.
The System was designed specifically to support the Congressionally
authorized project purposes of flood control, navigation, hydropower,
irrigation, water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and
wildlife under varying runoff conditions, including an extended drought
like that experienced in the 1930's. Around 39 MAF of System storage is
identified to for use during extended droughts.
Construction of the System dams occurred from the 1930's through
the mid-1960's. The highest dam in the System, Fort Peck, was
constructed in the 1930's as a Work Progress Administration project.
The 1944 Flood Control Act, commonly referred to as the Pick-Sloan Act,
authorized the remaining five dams. The entire System first filled to
operating levels in 1967.
The Corps has also constructed numerous other projects on the Lower
River downstream from the System, including the Missouri River Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) from Sioux City, Iowa, to
St. Louis, Missouri. The navigation and bank stabilization projects
were authorized under various Congressional acts. The navigation
channel in the Lower Missouri River was first authorized as a 6 foot
channel from Kansas City, Missouri, to the mouth of the river in the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1912. Several subsequent acts modified the
navigation project. The latest modification, the Rivers and Harbors Act
of March 1945, authorized construction of a 9-foot-deep by 300-foot-
wide channel from Sioux City to the mouth. The release of water from
the System serves the navigation purpose by providing water to the
navigation channel at navigation target flow rates. The Flood Control
Acts of 1941, 1946, 1948, 1963, 1968, 1974, and 1978 authorized
additional bank stabilization projects. Further streambank erosion
controls were authorized under the Water Resources Development Acts of
1974, 1986, and 1988.
Since the System first filled in 1967, there have been two moderate
to severe droughts in the Missouri River basin; one from 1987 until the
flood of 1993, and the current drought that began in the year 2000. As
the Missouri River basin enters its 5th year of drought (6th in
Montana), the impact on the System becomes increasingly severe. The
upper three reservoirs behind Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe Dams, which
contain 88 percent of the total storage, are drawn down 23 to 30 feet,
and last month the System as a whole reached an all time record low
since it first filled in 1967. This has negatively impacted all project
purposes except for flood control, which is positively impacted because
of increased capability to store floodwaters.
Examples of the negative impacts include lack of access for
recreational craft at the upper three System reservoirs due to low
reservoir pool levels (boat ramps out of water). Also, shortened
navigation season lengths and lower releases to conserve stored water
have negatively impacted navigation on the Missouri River from Sioux
City, Iowa to the mouth at St. Louis. Lower releases have also
negatively impacted hydropower production at the six System dams, and
caused concern, and in a few cases, reduced power generation at thermal
powerplants that use Missouri River water for once-through cooling.
Water supply intakes have also been affected, most notably in the
current drought a USBR intake for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe at Fort
Yates and a municipal intake at the Town of Parshall, both in North
Dakota. Irrigation has also been negatively impacted due to
difficulties accessing the System reservoir pools due to their low
levels.
The Corps has taken several steps to alleviate the negative impacts
due to the drought. For recreational interests, the Corps has extended
boat ramps at the upper three System reservoirs. We have completed
emergency work at the Parshall, North Dakota intake that will ensure
continued operation through this year. The USBR has implemented
measures that have returned the Fort Yates intake to service. The Corps
provided technical assistance to users to assist them in their planning
for mitigation of drought impacts.
The Corps does not attempt to predict multi-year droughts on the
Missouri, but does track snowpack in the Rocky Mountains each winter
season to facilitate runoff forecasts for that year. This snowpack data
is collected by NRCS ``snowtel'' sites located throughout the
mountainous areas that drain into the System. The Corps runoff
forecasts are updated at the beginning of each month of the year as new
data is received and is then used as input to computer models that
simulate reservoir regulation. These reservoir regulation simulation
models return data on anticipated System reservoir pool levels and
river flows between the reservoirs and downstream of the System. Along
with a ``most-likely'' runoff forecast for the year, the Corps inputs a
range of possible runoff scenarios into the reservoir regulation
simulation models to provide a range of potential reservoir pool levels
and river flows for use by all river interest in planning their
respective activities for the year.
Regarding long-term drought planning, the anticipated management of
the water stored in Corps dam and reservoir projects, such as the
System, is presented in what are known as water control manuals. The
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual (Master Manual) presents the
water control plan and operational objectives for the integrated
operation of the System. This includes drought conservation measure to
be implemented during low runoff periods. The Master Manual was first
published in December 1960 and was later revised in 1973, 1975, and
1979. The first Master Manual and its subsequent versions were
developed in consultation with State governments within the Missouri
River basin and Federal agencies having related authorities and
responsibilities.
In 1989, the Corps initiated a review of the Master Manual with
consideration of other laws and regulations to include the following:
ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations pertaining to NEPA.
A Final EIS has been published for the Master Manual Review and Update.
We are currently in a review time period for the Final EIS and I expect
to sign a Record of Decision for the Master Manual Review and Update
shortly.
As previously stated, in accordance with the ESA, the Corps must
insure, in consultation with the USFWS, that any action carried out by
the Corps is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
Federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the
destruction for adverse modification of their critical habitat. The
Federal (Corps) action subject to ESA consultation is the management of
storage and release of water, or ``operation'' of the System, the
operation of the Kansas River Reservoir projects, and the operation and
maintenance of the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP).
The species of interest in regard to these projects are the pallid
sturgeon (endangered), the interior least tern (endangered), and the
piping plover (threatened).
The Corps entered into formal consultation with the USFWS pursuant
to the ESA on the operation of the Missouri basin projects culminating
in the USFWS Missouri River Biological Opinion issued in November 2000
(2000 BiOp). The 2000 BiOp concluded that the Corps' proposed action
jeopardized the continued existence of the listed pallid sturgeon,
piping plover, and the interior least tern, and recommended a
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to avoid jeopardy.
Subsequently, the Corps and the USFWS have continued coordination
and entered into both informal and formal consultation over the Corps'
operation of the System and other actions addressed by the 2000 BiOp
designed to avoid jeopardy and conserve the Federally listed species.
On November 3, 2003, the Corps requested reinitiation of formal ESA
consultation on the operation of the System, the Kansas Reservoir
Projects, and the BSNP. On December 16, 2003 the USFWS issued an
amendment to its 2000 BiOp.
The 2003 Amended BiOp concluded that the Corps' proposed action
would not jeopardize the continued existence of the interior least tern
or piping plover. It also includes a ``reasonable and prudent
alternative'' (``RPA'') for the Corps' proposed operations that,
according to USFWS, if implemented, will avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the endangered pallid sturgeon. The Corps is
currently working with the USFWS to coordinate implementation of the
requirements of the 2003 Amended BiOp.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General. Your statement
is in the record.
Now, Dr. Louis Uccellini. Is that correct?
STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS UCCELLINI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTERS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTION, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Uccellini. Uccellini.
The Chairman. Uccellini. Boy, here I am with a name like
Domenici and I cannot say yours.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Uccellini. My family has trouble with it too.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman. I thank
you for inviting me to discuss the ongoing drought in the
Western United States.
I am Louis Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction, which is part of NOAA's National
Weather Service. Two of the National Weather Service centers,
namely the Climate Prediction Center and the
Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, are closely involved
with forecasting weather and climate variation related to
drought.
Today I will emphasize the current drought status, provide
a historical perspective, and discuss the most recent outlook,
which was created jointly with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. I will also summarize research activities,
including the role of the President's Climate Change Research
initiative.
Now, the current drought status, which was provided in the
longer testimony, shows that there has been some improvement.
Nevertheless, severe to extreme drought covers most of the
interior sections of the Western United States, as well as
parts of the High Plains, with exceptional droughts centered in
New Mexico and western Montana. The current situation involves
a multi-year drought which began in 1999 across much of the
West, worsened in 2000, and continued with some interruptions
into 2004. This winter season has seen improvement in many
locations. Snowpack and snow water content have been running
close to normal during the winter snow season in many places,
especially in the Great Basin and the Northwest, and are much
improved since last year. Continued improvement in water
supplies depends largely on snowfall continuing into spring, as
snowpack contributes to 50 to 80 percent of the region's water
supply.
Now, despite the recent snowpack improvement, some
reservoirs remain disturbingly low across most of the region.
As of March 1, 2004, four States--Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and
Arizona--report storage at or below 50 percent of normal.
Impressive deficits in precipitation have built up over the
past 4 to 5 years, a factor bound to swell any reservoir
replenishment, which will be limited as snowmelt runoff is
absorbed by the parched soils.
From a historical perspective, some drought indicators show
the current multiyear drought in parts of the interior West as
one of the most severe in the past 40 to 100 years. This
drought is comparable to the severe droughts in the 1950's and
1930's in some areas, while not quite as severe in others. For
example, the Colorado River basin storage this winter has been
the lowest in more than 30 years, with Lake Powell at its
lowest since 1970, when it was actually being filled, and Lake
Mead at its lowest since 1968.
A new outlook for the short-term changes in drought has
been released and is shown in figure 2. The precipitation from
recent storms has been encouraging, boosting valuable snowpacks
in the Southwest. The outlook for March suggests at least parts
of the Southwest may experience above-normal precipitation.
However, the latest streamflow forecasts from the USDA and
National Weather Service for the spring and summer show that
although there will be some improvement towards near-normal in
many areas, we will still be below normal for the Southwest,
especially Arizona and New Mexico.
The latest seasonal drought outlook shows improvements in
drought conditions over the Great Basin and in the Great
Plains. Limited improvement is possible in central and southern
New Mexico and from western Colorado and eastern Utah,
northward through Wyoming into Montana. We emphasize, however,
that improvement does not mean total relief. As summer
approaches, many reservoir levels are expected to remain below
normal.
The seasonal forecast through the next 12 months shows no
strong signals for either above or below normal precipitation.
As far as the research activities that we wish to
summarize, we want to emphasize that as our understanding and
skill improve, the ability to fine tune long-term climate
models will increase. However, predictions for long-term
climate at the regional level carry an increased level of
uncertainty. To reduce this uncertainty, NOAA continues to
invest in the advanced hydrological prediction services and
also to applied research to better understand the
interdependencies of the ocean and the land and the combined
influence on climate and related impact on drought.
Recent data shows a warming trend for the past several
decades over much of the West. Some climate models accurately
predict a temperature increase consistent with this warming
trend. These models project the warming trend will continue
this century. However, neither the climate model predictions
nor observations show any identifiable trend in precipitation.
NOAA continues to invest in research on the causes of
decadal oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the
role they play behind the long-term drought. In addition, NOAA,
the National Science Foundation, and sister science agencies in
Mexico are co-leading the North American Monsoon Experiment, an
international effort to enhance understanding of the sources
and limits of predictability of warm season precipitation over
North America, with a focus on the monsoon precipitation over
the Southwest. This is critical for water resource management
in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to bring your attention to
the important work begun under the President's Climate Change
Research initiative and the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program. The President's call to advance climate change science
and focus on the key uncertainties came to fruition in July
2003 when Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, and Secretary of
Energy, Spencer Abraham, unveiled the Strategic Plan of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program, a 10-year management plan
for climate research in the Federal Government that, for the
first time, introduces goals, deadlines, and deliverables.
The strategic plan includes goals in the following areas
that are relevant to drought research: the global water cycle,
including measurably improved forecasts of precipitation and
other water cycle variables for water managers, and increases
in the efficiency of water use through better water models for
policy and planning; land use and land cover and their
relationship to the climate change; and ecosystems in
developing information to support management decisions for
agricultural lands, forests, fisheries, and other ecosystems
under conditions of environmental change.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify before this
committee.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Uccellini follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Louis Uccellini, Director, National Centers
for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me to discuss the ongoing drought in the Western United
States. To complement its long-standing water supply forecasting done
jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has greatly expanded its role in monitoring and
forecasting droughts in recent years. I am happy to have the
opportunity to talk to you about the current drought situation, its
impacts on water supplies, the summer outlook, research, and how NOAA
interacts with other agencies to deliver these drought products and
related services.
I am Louis Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction, which is part of NOAA's National Weather
Service (NWS). Two of our Centers are closely involved with forecasting
weather and short-term seasonal and climate variations, namely the
Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) and the Climate Prediction
Center (CPC). The latter center is involved with drought monitoring and
forecasting, and currently produces the seasonal drought outlooks and
continues to play a key role in producing the U.S. Drought Monitor
while working with other agencies to improve the tools used to monitor
drought. In addition, the NWS' Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services
(ADPS) program leverages climate outlooks to provide improved water
supply forecasts, and NOAA's Climate Diagnostics Center collaborates
with the NWS to incorporate the latest research results into drought
forecasting.
CURRENT DROUGHT STATUS
The current status of the western drought is shown in Figure 1.*
Severe to extreme drought covers most of the interior sections of the
Western United States, (herein referred to as the West) as well as
parts of the High Plains. The current situation involves a multi-year
drought which began in 1999 across much of the West, worsened in 2000,
and continued, with some interruptions, into 2004. However, this winter
season has seen improvement in many locations. Snowpack and snow water
content have been running close to normal during this winter snow
season in many places, especially in the Great Basin and Northwest, and
are much improved since last year. Numerous winter storms have been
dropping heavy snow over central and northern areas since December and
over the Southwest since late February. The Southwest is still lagging,
but the drought condition is improving. Continued improvement in water
supplies depends largely on snowfall continuing into spring.
Furthermore, the pace of spring snow melt is important in relieving
drought conditions with a gradual snowmelt preferred over sudden
melting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in committee folder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain snowpack is like money in the bank for western water
supplies, as the snowpack contributes anywhere from 50 to 80% of the
water supply in this region. Despite recent improvement in the snow
conditions, reservoirs remain disturbingly low across most of the
region. This is due to the long-term nature of the drought. Impressive
deficits in precipitation have built up over the past four to five
years. Deficits of 10 to 15 inches of liquid precipitation have
occurred over a large area, and in some cases have exceeded over 20
inches, which is more than a year's worth of precipitation. As a
result, soils have become exceedingly dry. Reservoir replenishment will
be limited as snow melt runoff is absorbed by parched soils.
Reservoirs remain significantly below normal in every western state
except California. As of February 1, 2004, four states--Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah, and Oregon report storage at or below 50% of normal. As a
consequence, water restrictions are in place in a number of locations.
Water managers expect farmers in the hardest hit areas of the drought
region to have reduced access to water for agriculture this spring and
summer, as difficult decisions are made to balance the needs of water
users--consumers, the environment, farmers, ranchers, and recreational
users. Illustrating the difficult decisions these water managers face,
as of January 31, Colorado River Basin water storage stood at 68% of
normal, with Lake Powell in Utah at just 57% of normal storage, which
is near the 5-year low for water storage.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
From an historical perspective of droughts in the interior West,
some indicators of drought depict the current multi-year drought as one
of the most severe in the past 40 to 100 years, comparable to the
severe droughts in the 1950s and 1930s in some areas, while not quite
as severe in others. For California's water supply/reservoir storage,
this drought is not as bad as the 1988-93 drought.
Colorado River Basin storage this winter has been the lowest in
more than 30 years, with Lake Powell at its lowest since 1970, and Lake
Mead its lowest since 1968. Since Lake Mead began declining in late
1999, water storage has dropped nearly 40%. Water supply experts in New
Mexico are telling us that serious shortages will persist in the state
even with above-normal rain and snow this season, and some reservoirs
may not even be restored by normal precipitation during the next winter
season.
The West is largely a semi-arid region, and water supplies there
are especially vulnerable to long-term shortages of precipitation.
Historically, there have been long periods with enhanced precipitation
as well as long periods with reduced precipitation, often lasting 20 or
30 or more years. Given the recent period from the 1980s into the 1990s
had precipitation amounts above historical averages in the Colorado
River Basin and the Southwest, it is only natural to expect there will
be periods with lesser amounts of precipitation. In addition,
population growth has placed increased demands on water supplies, so
drought vulnerability has increased because of greater numbers of water
users.
THE OUTLOOK
In order to fully appreciate the long-term outlook for the drought,
it is helpful to understand the meteorological causes and ongoing
research issues. Recent research, much of it coming from NOAA
laboratories or from NOAA funded projects in universities, gives us
some insight into the factors that we believe contributed to the multi-
year drought. Studies based on collections of statistical and physical
models show the important role that existing ocean and ground
conditions play in establishing wind patterns leading to ``blocking''
in the atmosphere, an important factor in setting up the weather
conditions which cause prolonged warm and dry conditions and cause
reduced rainfall and above-normal warmth. Climate trends should also be
considered when forecasting the future evolution of a drought. The
West's climate has been getting warmer for about 20-25 years,
especially in the winter and spring. These conditions contribute to the
drought by increasing the rate of snow melt in the spring and early
summer, and also increase water evaporation.
For the shorter-term drought outlook, trends in mountain snowpack
and winter storms, as well as the medium and long-range forecasts of
precipitation from CPC are emphasized. The spring-summer streamflow
forecasts from USDA/NRCS and NWS hydrologists are an important
consideration for the water supply outlook in the West. Precipitation
from recent storms has been encouraging, boosting valuable snow packs
in the Southwest, an area which missed most of the storms before late
February. The recent improvement in the Southwest follows the
improvement in moisture conditions farther north earlier this winter,
which resulted in some drought relief across much of the Northwest. The
official monthly CPC outlook for March suggests at least parts of the
Southwest may experience above-normal precipitation. The latest
streamflow forecasts for this spring and summer produced by USDA's NRCS
show an improvement to near normal for many central and northern areas
of the West, but below normal for the Southwest. However, we expect the
March Outlook will reflect the enhanced snowpack and show some
improvement in the drought conditions for the Southwest.
Over the medium-term, seasonal forecasts through the next 12 months
show no strong signals for above or below normal precipitation. The
lack of El Nino or La Nina development creates much uncertainty in the
seasonal outlooks, but the fact that the current Pacific Sea Surface
Temperature (SST) pattern does not greatly resemble patterns associated
with historical western droughts (e.g., cold water in the eastern
Pacific) makes us somewhat more optimistic. The latest seasonal drought
outlook (Figure 2), which combines forecasts for all time periods out
to the end of May and considers recent trends in snowpack, presents a
fairly optimistic picture, with likely drought improvement over the
Great Basin and in the Great Plains. Limited improvement is possible in
central and southern New Mexico and from western Colorado and eastern
Utah northward through Wyoming into Montana. Of course, we always
emphasize that improvement does not mean total relief. As summer
approaches, reservoir levels are expected to remain below normal in
many parts of the West.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
As our understanding of, and skill in forecasting, the seasonal to
interannual climate range improves, the ability to fine tune long term
climate models increases as well. However, predictions for long-term
climate (herein defined as more than 1 year) at the regional level
carry an increased level of uncertainty. In order to reduce that
uncertainty, NOAA continues to invest in research to better understand
the interdependencies of the ocean and land and the combined influence
on climate. Recent data shows a warming trend for the past several
decades over much of the West, especially during the winter season.
Climate models, using historical data, accurately predict temperature
increases consistent with this observed long term warming trend. These
models project the general warming trend will continue for the
remainder of this century. However, neither climate model predictions
nor observations show any identifiable trend in precipitation.
Research at NOAA's Climate Diagnostics Center indicates recent
decadal swings in precipitation in the West may be largely attributable
to decadal variations in ocean temperatures, especially in the tropical
Pacific and Indian Oceans. The causes of these ocean temperature
variations are themselves not fully understood, but undoubtedly due in
part to strong natural variability in the coupled atmosphere-ocean
system, such as occurs with El Nino-Southern Oscillation. Even with
unchanging total precipitation in this region, changes in temperatures
may significantly influence the annual water cycle as well as water
demand, with subsequent implications for water management.
NOAA continues to invest in research on the causes of decadal
oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the role they play
behind long-term drought. In addition, NOAA and sister science agencies
in Mexico are co-leading the North American Monsoon Experiment (NAME),
an international effort to enhance understanding of the sources and
limits of predictability of warm season precipitations over North
America, with emphasis on time scales from seasonal to interannual.
Improved understanding and prediction of monsoon rainfall in the
southwestern U.S. and Mexico is critical for water resource management
in the region.
NOAA also supports four university-based Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessments (RISAs) programs in the Western U.S. that
develop and provide improved drought information for decision-makers.
Each of the four RISAs (located in Washington, California, Arizona and
Colorado) focuses on regional issues related to assessing drought
impacts, and improving the use and usefulness of forecasts and
monitoring products for impact mitigation and cost reduction.
the role of the president's climate change research initiative
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to bring your attention to the
important work begun under the President's Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Our ability to understand the large and complex forces at work on the
planet will enable us to help develop high quality information for
operational use by public works officials, city and county planners,
forestry experts, and others charged with the responsibility of
managing natural resources in communities across the nation. Furthering
the science of climate change also helps policymakers on the local,
state, and national levels make informed decisions.
The President's call to advance climate change science and focus on
the key uncertainties came to fruition in July 2003 when Secretary of
Commerce Donald Evans and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham unveiled
the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, a ten
year management plan for climate research in the federal government
that, for the first time, introduces goals, deadlines, and
deliverables.
The Strategic Plan is also a milestone for drought and water
research. Contained within it are research goals for the following
areas:
Global water cycle, including measurably improved forecasts
of precipitation and other water cycle variables for water
managers, and increases in the efficiency of water use through
better water models for policy and planning;
Land use and land cover change: identifying past and
projected trends in land cover or land use that are
attributable to changes in climate, and identifying U.S.
regions where climate change may have the greatest implications
for land management;
Ecosystems: developing information to support management
decisions for agricultural lands, forests, fisheries, and other
ecosystems under conditions of environmental change.
When one takes into consideration the increase in population in the
western United States and the challenges this expansion poses for
resource management, the Administration's Strategic Plan comes at a
critical juncture and will hopefully advance the state of knowledge for
drought and water research in a way that assists resource managers and
policymakers in their planning and policymaking.
COLLABORATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
NOAA collaborates with many state and Federal agencies (e.g., NASA,
EPA, USGS, and others) and universities to monitor, understand and
predict drought. For example, NOAA works with USDA and the National
Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska to produce the weekly
U.S. Drought Monitor, which also uses input from many other Federal and
state agencies as well as feedback from a network of over 100 experts
around the nation. NOAA works closely with USDA/NRCS on water supply
forecasting in the western U.S., and relies on the USGS for streamflow
data critical to both water supply and flood forecasting. NOAA also
recently began collaborating with Canadian and Mexican meteorologists
to produce an experimental North American Drought Monitor.
NOAA's National Weather Service is modernizing its network of
cooperative observation sites to provide better coverage and more
accurate measurements to aid in measuring drought. We are working with
the Western Governors' Association to plan an ambitious program--the
National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)--to
significantly enhance our ability to monitor drought across the
country. Although the biggest challenge for NIDIS is to establish a
modern, dense network of observing locations to observe and monitor all
aspects of drought (a national integrated mesonet), the plan envisions
greatly enhanced access to an entire range of data and information on
drought conditions, impacts, and forecasts, and supported by a focused
drought research program. NIDIS involves collaborating with many
agencies to accomplish its goal, but NOAA will provide key leadership
to establish NIDIS. We expect that this plan will be presented to the
western governors at the annual WGA meeting in June 2004.
For drought forecasting, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center is
developing techniques to forecast drought over seasonal periods. It
issues outlooks at least once each month covering the next three and
one-half months. CPC drought forecasters have been meeting with
forecasters and researchers both inside and outside the U.S. to explore
methods to improve the drought outlooks. Advanced forecast methods
based on statistical and global numerical models will continue to be
incorporated into drought outlooks, using the best forecasting tools
and research available.
As part of NOAA's Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, the NWS
will leverage increasing skill in climate forecasts to provide state of
the art water supply forecasts for water management and other state and
regional agencies.
Outside the West, where many areas depend on water stored in large
reservoirs, summertime drought forecasts rely on long-term
precipitation forecasts, and the usefulness of these forecasts will
always be greatly limited by the arbitrary nature (``hit and miss'') of
summertime showers and thunderstorms over the U.S. Much work is needed
to upgrade seasonal and longer-term outlooks. NOAA's research community
will continue to interact with researchers throughout the country and
the world in programs, such as this year's North American Monsoon
Experiment (NAME) activity, to improve climate and statistical models,
enabling a steady increase in our understanding of the causes of
drought. Learning the mechanisms triggering drought will enable us to
better forecast the likelihood of drought development months and years
ahead of time.
We are encouraged by recent research that helps to explain the
reasons behind drought development. It is a continuing challenge to
produce seasonal forecasts that are consistently accurate. However, as
with our weather forecasts, we believe we can keep improving.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss drought and water supply in the West and the
role NOAA plays in drought monitoring, forecasting and research. This
topic is critical given the increasing population in the West and the
increasing demand for drought information to help manage the demand for
water. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of
the Committee may have.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, and we will next
go to Floyd Gaibler. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF FLOYD GAIBLER, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY FOR FARM AND
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gaibler. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator
Bingaman. It is a pleasure to appear before the committee on
behalf of the Department of Agriculture and discuss what our
role has been in terms of assisting farmers and ranchers in
rural communities during times of drought and other natural
disasters.
Clearly drought is agriculture's most expensive, frequent,
and widespread form of natural disaster. Each time drought
occurs, several questions arise on how best to address the
losses that are inflicted and how best to prevent, or at least
mitigate, their costs in the future. There have been a number
of attempts to address these various serious questions.
For example, in 1998, Congress passed the National Drought
Policy Act that created the National Drought Policy Commission.
The report from that commission stated that this Nation would
benefit from a national drought policy based on preparedness
and mitigation to reduce the need for emergency relief.
An outgrowth of that report was the establishment of an
interim drought council and that council has met several times,
most recently last October in Albuquerque. The purpose was to
establish a coordinated approach to address the impacts of
drought through preparedness, monitoring, risk management, and
response to drought emergencies. And among other things, the
council has developed a web site to increase communications
between agencies and awareness of what is being done on the
State and local level.
While the drought in 2003 was not all-encompassing
nationwide, it clearly remained entrenched in and across much
of the Western half of the United States. Several Western
States, in fact, experienced significant drought conditions at
the local level.
The Department has closely monitored the drought through
collaboration with other Federal agencies that are appearing
here on this panel today.
Regarding the current drought status and water supply
situation, clearly some regional snowpacks have improved
significantly, but at the same time, others, particularly in
parts of Arizona, continue to be below average.
Again, looking at reservoir storage for all Western States,
except California, it is running below historic averages,
reflecting the carryover dryness of the continuing drought.
While a majority of the basins are forecast to receive average
or slightly above average spring and summer streamflows, a
number of critical basins are running either below or well
below.
In response to these drought conditions, last year
Secretary Veneman directed the formation of a departmental
Drought Coordinating Council to more closely monitor these
conditions and coordinate our resources to assist drought-
affected producers and rural communities. We have in place a
number of programs to help producers during losses attributable
to drought. One example is a partnership we have with the State
departments of agriculture to distribute surplus non-fat dry
milk for use in livestock foundation herds in drought-stricken
States.
In another innovative partnership, USDA agencies have
worked with the Department of the Interior and the State of
Oregon to deliver badly needed water to the Klamath Basin
producers.
We also have several agencies that have worked to mitigate
the impacts of drought on grazing land and croplands.
Through other various programs, the Department has provided
low-interest emergency loans, funding for non-insurable crop
losses, cost share assistance to rehabilitate farmland, and
loan programs for rural areas for new water sources, backup
source, and new wells.
Finally, the Department has focused ongoing drought
research in areas such as mitigation, plant stress, and water
efficiency, water conservation, soil moisture, and weather
prediction and remote sensing. We feel that the drought council
has had a successful program and all of its partnering agencies
have played a crucial role in improving the capabilities of
predicting and mitigating the forces of nature.
In summary, USDA has long supported efforts to mitigate the
effects of drought on America's farmers and ranchers in rural
communities. We look forward to working with this committee and
the Congress to address the many concerns associated with the
remaining challenging issues surrounding drought and related
disasters.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee and we would be happy to entertain any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaibler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Floyd Gaibler, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and
Foreign Agriculture Services, Department of Agriculture
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
the Department of Agriculture to testify before this committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to share with you
what the USDA is doing to help farmers and ranchers in this country
during times of drought and other natural disasters. America's farmers
and ranchers play an important role in providing stable, safe, and
affordable food supplies to the citizens of this country.
USDA helps ensure the well-being of U.S. agriculture through
efficient and equitable administration of farm commodity programs;
loans; conservation and environmental programs; federal crop insurance;
and emergency and disaster assistance programs. These programs are
major components of USDA's farm safety net, which helps producers
maintain viable operations, compete for sales of commodities, and
contribute to the year-round availability of low-cost, safe and
nutritious foods.
Drought is agriculture's most expensive, frequent, and widespread
form of natural disaster. Drought will occur at some time every year
somewhere in the United States resulting in substantial losses each
year. USDA's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) payments alone
for drought losses have averaged $462 million annually (33 percent of
total FCIC payments), since 1989. Over half of the total $4.1 billion
in 2002-crop insurance indemnity payments, or some $2.5 billion, were
for drought related causes.
One-half to two-thirds of the counties in the United States have
been designated as disaster areas in each of the past several years.
Each time drought occurs, many of the same issues are raised.
Principally, how much damage was inflicted, on whom, and where? Who is
going to pay for it? How can we prevent or at least mitigate damages
and their costs in the future? There have been a number of attempts to
address these very serious questions.
For example, in 1998, Congress passed the National Drought Policy
Act that created the National Drought Policy Commission. The Commission
submitted its report to the President and Congress in May of 2002. The
report stated that this nation would benefit from a national drought
policy based on preparedness and mitigation to reduce the need for
emergency relief. The Commission's report identified 83 drought-related
federal programs, including 41 within USDA.
In October, USDA and non-Federal partners, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, jointly hosted the Interim National Drought Council meeting.
Representatives from drought impacted groups, state/local governments,
congressional offices, Department of the Interior, Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Small Business Administration, Department of the Army, and USDA
worked to establish a coordinated approach to address the impacts of
drought through preparedness, monitoring, risk management, and response
to drought emergencies.
2003 DROUGHT IN REVIEW
During 2003, drought remained entrenched across much of the western
half of the U.S. and in the northern and western Corn Belt, but
thankfully did not spread nationwide. A lack of moisture for winter
wheat emergence and establishment also occurred in several key-
producing areas, particularly across the northern and central High
Plains and the Northwest. Elsewhere, drought was primarily
hydrological, lowering reservoir levels and reducing irrigation
supplies.
Even though the drought was not all-encompassing nationwide, there
were still quite a number of States and counties that experienced
significant drought conditions at a localized level. For example, seven
entire States (Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, South
Carolina, and Utah) received disaster designations by Secretary Veneman
in 2003. In total, 2,351 counties received disaster designations in
2003. Of this total, 1,596 counties across 32 States received disaster
declarations due to drought conditions.
For a county to qualify for a Secretarial disaster designation it
must have sustained a 30 percent production loss in a single major
enterprise, or there must be at least one producer in the county that
sustained a 30 percent production loss in a single major enterprise and
is unable to get financing with other lenders in the area at reasonable
rates and terms.
In 2004, counties in 25 States, including Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, have applied for Secretarial
disaster declarations for drought.
As of March 1, a total of 217 counties in eleven States have been
designated as primary natural disaster areas by the Secretary due to
production losses from all causes, during calendar year 2004 to date.
An additional 248 counties, in 27 States, have been named as contiguous
counties during the same period.
In addition, 173 of the 217 primary counties have been designated,
due to drought and drought related causes during calendar year 2004 to
date. Those 173 counties represent 5 States. Also, 138 of 2487
contiguous counties have been named, due to drought during the same
period. Those 138 counties represent 15 States.
Lastly, while the economic effects of the 2003 drought have been
significant for some producers, national crop and livestock returns
have shown little effect. Despite widespread hot, dry conditions last
summer, aggregate U.S. yields were up for wheat and feed grains in
2003. National average corn yields were a record and up more than 9
percent from 2002. With a rebound in world market prices, crop revenues
in 2004 are projected at a record $114 billion, compared to $107
billion in 2003 and $99 billion in 2002. Likewise, despite persistent
poor forage conditions in the Mountain West and the discovery of a BSE-
infected cow in Washington state, the value of livestock production is
forecast to be $101 billion in 2004, which would be only the third year
in which it has exceeded $100 billion.
WESTERN DROUGHT STATUS AND WATER SUPPLY SITUATION
The current drought in the interior West is part of a multi-year
drought that began in 1999, worsened in 2000, and has continued, with
some interruptions thus far into 2004. As a result, the drought in the
West was slow to develop, and likewise, will be slow to recede.
The current drought in the West is primarily hydrological, lowering
reservoir levels and reducing irrigation supplies. The USDA
collaborates with several federal and non-federal agencies to produce
the ``U.S. Drought Monitor'' report. The Drought Monitor is an
operational product that is released weekly. The product serves as a
useful tool in depicting the intensity, spatial extent, and potential
impacts of drought across the country.
From the February 24, 2004 ``U.S. Drought Monitor'', most of the
Intermountain West is experiencing some degree of drought. ``Moderate
Drought'' affects a large portion of the Intermountain West, with
``Extreme Drought'' affecting the Rocky Mountain States. ``Exceptional
Drought'' is affecting southeastern Idaho and southwestern Montana, a
small portion of southwest Wyoming, a small portion of northeast Utah
and parts of southern Utah, northeastern New Mexico, and southern New
Mexico. The magnitude of the drought in the West is highly unusual.
``Exceptional Droughts'' typically have less than a 2 percent chance of
occurrence, while ``Extreme Droughts'' have a 2 to 5 percent chance of
occurrence.
Snowmelt provides approximately 80 percent of the streamflow in the
West. Precipitation, accumulated as snow in the winter months, melts
and runs off during the months of April through July. This snowmelt is
captured in reservoirs for use during the irrigation season of May
through September. Data is collected on the amount of precipitation,
runoff, and snowpack content in a given year to anticipate the
approximate amount of water that will be available.
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Snow Survey
and Water Supply Forecast Program installs, operates, and maintains an
extensive, automated system to collect snowpack and related climatic
data in the Western United States called SNOTEL (for SNOwpack
TELemetry). The system evolved from a NRCS's Congressional mandate ``to
measure snowpack in the mountains of the West and forecast the water
supply.''
In cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Weather Service, NRCS collects snow
information through a network of about 680 SNOTEL sites and 900
traditional snow courses. Using the data collected, NRCS issues over
11,000 water supply forecasts annually for water users in 11 western
states and Alaska. Agricultural, municipal, industrial, hydropower, and
recreational water users are the primary recipients of these forecasts.
Water supply forecasts and climate information help irrigators make the
most effective use of available water supplies for achieving their
agricultural production goals. Farmers who collectively irrigate more
than 10 million acres of land in the western U.S. benefit from these
information products. Other Federal agencies and private organizations
also use water supply forecast information to help them carry out their
missions.
Seasonal snowpacks for the period October 1, 2003 through the
present, improved significantly in the Pacific Northwest and
Intermountain West when compared to last year's snowpack, which was 40%
to 70% of average. Current snowpacks are above normal, averaging 125%
in Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Snowpacks remain near average in the
Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and northern New
Mexico. In spite of recent storms, snowpacks continue to be below
average in central Arizona and southern New Mexico, ranging from 65% to
80%.
As of February 1, 2004, reservoir storage for all western States
except California is running below historic February averages, with
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming reporting the largest
storage deficits. Low storage values reflect carryover dryness of the
continuing drought in the Intermountain West, Southwest, and southern
Rockies and last year's below average seasonal runoff.
As of February 1, 2004 a majority of basins in the Pacific
Northwest, northern Rockies of Montana and Idaho and central California
are forecast to receive average, or slightly above average, spring and
summer streamflows. Conversely, many basins in Arizona, New Mexico, the
south Platte River of Colorado, and the Bear River of southeastern
Idaho are forecast to receive well below average spring streamflows,
less than 50% of average. Most basins in the Intermountain West and
eastern slopes of the Rockies in Wyoming and Colorado are forecast to
receive below average spring and summer streamflow, 50% to 90% of
average.
USDA EFFORTS TO ADDRESS DROUGHT
Secretary Veneman formed a departmental Drought Coordinating
Council on April 8, 2003, within the USDA, to monitor conditions and
coordinate resources to assist drought-affected agricultural producers
and rural communities. The Council is comprised of key USDA senior
level officials and is chaired by the Deputy Secretary. The Council
continues to meet on a regular basis. The Council monitors drought
conditions and coordinates resources to assist affected agricultural
producers and rural communities.
We at USDA recognize that drought has resulted in periodic
degradation to our natural resources and has devastated many farming
and ranching operations across the country. USDA leads the nation's
efforts to minimize risks associated with farming and ranching and
provides critical assistance when drought occurs. We currently have in
place several programs to help producers enduring losses that are
attributable to drought. Some of USDA's disaster programs are mandated
and funded annually by Congress. Access to FSA's low-interest emergency
farm loans is just one example of such assistance.
To best meet producers' diverse needs, USDA agencies often
collaborate with each other and outside partners to deliver dynamic,
adaptable, disaster assistance programs. One example of this is the
Farm Service Agency's (FSA) partnership with State Departments of
Agriculture (SDA) to distribute nonfat dry milk for use in livestock
foundation herds to twelve drought-stricken States and one tribe.
In another innovative partnership FSA worked with the Department of
Interior and the State of Oregon to deliver badly needed water to
Klamath Basin irrigators. The agencies recharged a principal canal to
assist farmers and restore the health of the ecosystem. Also, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has worked with farmers,
ranchers and other partnerships in the Klamath Basin to conserve water
on irrigated farm and ranchlands in the Basin. These measures,
including converting farmland from flood to sprinkler irrigation, have
been implemented on over 16,000 acres, resulting in 6,700 acre-feet of
water being conserved on-farm.
USDA has developed other innovative ways to help farmers and
ranchers. USDA provided $857 million Livestock Compensation Programs
(LCP) I, and provided 253 million pounds of non-fat dry milk to cattle
under the Cattle Feed Program. Congress later appropriated funds of
$252 million for LCP II.
Several USDA agencies work aggressively to expedite drought
assistance and mitigate impacts. Last year the NRCS stepped up pre-
drought planning and mitigation by applying 30,500 new resource
management systems on 16.8 million acres of grazing land and, at the
same time, installing 15,600 irrigation management measures on 1.9
million acres of cropland.
The USDA's NRCS implements numerous conservation programs that are
beneficial for drought mitigation, including conservation and watershed
planning measures. In addition, cost-share program assistance helps
agricultural producers experiencing drought. For example, the
Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP) can address resource
impairments that are the result of drought. EQIP funds are being used
to fund the establishment of cover crops or conservation tillage, in
order to keep wind erosion under control. Other examples include
incentive payments for prescribed grazing and management of drought-
related pests such as grasshoppers.
The Ground and Surface Water Conservation component of EQIP is
utilized to directly assist producers make more efficient use of water
resources. Examples include converting irrigation systems to less
water-intensive practices such as drip irrigation, and in some cases
switching a producer to dryland farming. This program in past years has
been targeted specifically to assist states experiencing drought. The
NRCS also provides several conservation programs that are beneficial
for drought mitigation, including conservation and watershed planning
measures.
In 2002, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) paid
out approximately $220 million dollars of which it is estimated that
$147 million was associated to drought. The Emergency Conservation
Program (ECP), which provides cost-share assistance to agricultural
producers to rehabilitate farmland damaged or destroyed by natural
disaster and to provide emergency water conservation measures in times
of severe drought, provided $17.4 million in drought-related assistance
to 27 States.
Drought conditions also brought additional help from the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Last year, APHIS had treatment
money available to eradicate grasshoppers and Mormon crickets.
Increased populations of these insects go hand-in-hand with increased
drought conditions. APHIS provided treatment assistance in nine states,
protecting a total of 1.2 million acres.
In addition, USDA's Rural Utilities Service provides direct and
guaranteed loans and up to 75% grants for water, waste disposal, and
solid waste facilities in rural areas. Drought related programs include
new water source, backup source, and new wells. Fiscal year 2003
funding totaled $1.4 billion, with $813 million for water purposes.
While Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) funding for fiscal year
2003 research was $23 million dollars. ARS focuses on four major areas
of drought research: Mitigation, Plant Stress and Water Use Efficiency,
Water Conservation and Soil Moisture, and Weather Prediction and Remote
Sensing.
Information on USDA disaster assistance is also available at:
http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov.
Reducing this nation's vulnerability to the consequences of drought
is the cornerstone of USDA's national drought policy. The Drought
Council is a proactive partnership helping to improve drought planning,
preparation, and mitigation. The Drought Council and all its partnering
agencies have played a crucial role in improving capabilities for
predicting and mitigating the forces of nature. But when drought or
other natural disasters do strike, USDA is continuing to help farmers
survive and overcome adversity.
CONCLUSION
Drought is perhaps the most obstinate and pernicious of the
dramatic events that Nature conjures up. At its most severe, dust bowls
once eroded the American landscape, causing hundreds of millions of
dollars in losses, and dashing hopes and dreams for thousands of
families. Today drought is still agriculture's most expensive,
frequent, and widespread form of natural disaster that continues to
perplex and inflict its misery on our nation's farmers and ranchers.
The National Drought Policy Act of 1998 presented this country with
a significant opportunity. The law recognized the need to prepare for
and lesson the severe impacts of drought on the American people and the
environment. It created the National Drought Policy Commission to
advise Congress on formulation of national drought policy based on
preparedness, mitigation, and risk management, rather than on crisis
management.
Oftentimes, USDA's role lies at the forefront of disaster relief
and management for producers throughout the nation. When disaster
strikes, USDA has programs and assistance that can be made available to
help producers recover crop losses, the cost of rehabilitating
farmlands, and for emergency water assistance.
In summary, USDA has long supported efforts to mitigate the effects
of drought on America's ranchers and farmers. We look forward to
working with Members of Congress to address the many concerns
associated with the challenging issues surrounding drought and related
disasters.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you all, gentlemen. I appreciate
your testimony here this morning.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I
have an opportunity to spend a lot of time focusing on this
issue, and I appreciate you coming before the full Energy
Committee this morning to give this update.
In our subcommittee, we have been looking at very specific
projects, the CALFED/Bay Delta Authorization Act, the Gila
River water settlement. We are going to be taking up rural
water supply legislation next week, and we are also going to be
looking at proposals for desalinization projects, as well as
hearings on dam safety. I think some of you will be joining us
at those upcoming hearings.
But as you certainly have recognized in your testimony
today, the issues of supply and demand as they relate to water
and how that affects economy, how it affects our agriculture,
really how it affects how we live in this country is quite key.
So I appreciate all that you do in bringing your perspectives
this morning.
The first question is more a general one to those of you
who would choose to speak up on it. You have each testified
about key data collection and resource assessment activities.
You have certainly brought a good deal of insight from your
perspective, but the interaction between the various agencies--
one could suggest that there is a haphazard approach or
coordination between agencies, States. I guess I would ask if
it is fair to characterize the cumulative Federal effort to
understand water resources, predict future water resource needs
and supplies and build a basis for the best possible
management--would you suggest that it is poorly coordinated?
Give me your perspective on that coordination between the
various agencies on this.
Mr. Raley, do you want to go first?
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Senator. A pleasure to be here.
Yes, I would say it is poorly coordinated not through the
fault of any individual, but as we have developed a water
policy particularly in the West for the last 100 years, there
have been assignments given by Congress to a wide range of
different agencies. As much as all try, we have difficulty
keeping each other up to speed on the latest developments.
Senator Murkowski. How can we improve it?
Mr. Raley. Well, I am aware of efforts to have, in essence,
one-stop shopping on the web using the President's e-gov
initiative and drought research and tools that are largely
driven by and the responsibility of agencies outside of the
Department of the Interior. We looked at it because the USGS,
which is a part of Interior, has a role in this in terms of
gauging and some research, but concluded that it would be
counterproductive for us to assume that the Interior Department
should be the focal point for that data collection, that we
should coordinate with USDA and NOAA because they were working
with the Western States Governors Association, pulling together
this goal of one-stop shopping in terms of information. So I
think continued focus by all agencies, with assistance from
Congress in terms of helping us keep that focus, would be
helpful.
As to planning for drought, I would observe that we have a
longstanding and deeply rooted policy of federalism with
respect to Western water issues, which means that the Federal
Government's proper role is to some degree subservient to the
States that have the lead role on water policy and allocation.
That inherently means that we have 17 subsets of Federal water
policy, and that is the way the West has wanted it. And at
Interior, we certainly support that.
Senator Murkowski. Anybody else? Any comments on how we can
improve the coordination?
Dr. Uccellini. Yes, I would like a few comments. I think it
is fair to say that there have been improvements over the past
10, 15, 20 years in terms of coordinating on data amongst the,
for example, National Weather Service and the Department of
Agriculture and USGS in terms of receiving data that we need to
make forecasts and us providing data and information that
people need to make decisions.
But having stated that, it is also clear that much more
needs to be done in terms of coordinating existing and planned
data, especially remotely sensed data and how the information
is used in the decision-making process. It not only influences
the decision-makers but influences those who are providing that
information, especially as we are working towards improving our
forecasts and trying to describe the uncertainties in those
forecasts to those who have to make decisions.
So a focused effort on a problem like drought helps bring
this together both in terms of data that goes in to analysis
and forecast systems and how the information then comes out of
the forecast system and is used by decision-makers.
There is an ongoing activity that is actually coordinated
through the Western Governors Association. It is a National
Integrated Drought Information System, NIDIS. It is in a draft
phase. It is a drought early warning system for the 21st
century and it is trying to bring these issues together in
terms of how we best use the observations, how we make that
coordination function happen more efficiently and bringing all
these observations together, and then again, getting the
forecasts out to the decision-makers in a more effective
manner.
Mr. Gaibler. I would just make the observation that from
our experience the Interim Drought Council I mentioned is a
good vehicle to try and bring together everything that is being
done across our various agencies to attempt to broadly address
the drought issues and also to build a better relationship with
the States and the affected communities and producers that are
directly impacted by that. I believe that there could be better
and closer coordination and efforts behind that council
process. It is one area, at least from our perspective, that we
could recommend that could be improved.
General Grisoli. Senator, I would like to agree with my
colleagues on their comments so far.
I would like to add that the more I got into this
particular area, having been serving in the Pacific Northwest
in the Missouri River and the Columbia River basins, the basins
are done differently, each handled a little differently with
the Federal agencies, and I can see that we probably could
learn from each other a little bit more about how we interact
with State, Federal, and our other stakeholders by sharing
information between the basins, handling some of the many
challenges. They are very different and complex, but some
things they share which are the same, which is making sure we
share information and we work together as a team to solve
problems.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Raley.
Mr. Raley. Senator, if I could add. When Secretary Norton
decided to look at these water policy issues that are within
the purview of Interior, we were very aware of the recent
history of what was, I believe, started by Senator Hatfield
from Oregon of the Western Water Policy Review Commission. That
was a well-intended effort. As I understood it, the goal for
that effort was to attain coordination between the agencies,
the heart of your question. My personal observation is that a
lot of people put a lot of time and put a lot of money into
that effort, and I would say that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to identify any consequence of all that work.
Secretary Norton and the Interior Department were very
aware of that well-intended effort and the fact that it has had
virtually no impact on water policy, and that is why Water 2025
focuses on things that we know can be done on the ground to
make a difference. There is something in the middle there, I
recognize, between the laudable and absolutely essential
objective of having coordination which will always fail that no
matter how hard we try, but we have to make that effort. Moving
forward with reality and dealing with things on the ground,
there is something in the middle there.
But we are quite reticent as a Department, particularly
given our strong adherence of principles of federalism to tread
the same path as was trod for the last 8 years because we are
not sure that we would end up with a different result, and we
are fairly certain that even if we came to a different
conclusion in theory, the consequences on the ground might be
the same as they were and are of the Western Water Policy
Review Commission, which is virtually nothing.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I will come back. I want to ask a
question or two about the Water 2025.
Senator Bingaman, would you like to ask a couple questions
here?
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me start just trying to follow up on the same line of
questioning. I am struck by a couple of different statements
contained in the testimony. Dr. Uccellini, you have this
statement in your testimony where you say mountain snowpack is
like money in the bank for Western water supplies as the
snowpack contributes anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of the
water supply in the region. I do not think anybody who has seen
the benefits of a good snowpack would disagree with that.
There was an article that was put out last month by the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory where they reported on a
study that one of their scientists did where they concluded
global warming will diminish the amount of water stored as snow
in the Western United States by up to 70 percent in the coastal
mountains over the next 50 years.
So it strikes me that we seem to have agreement we ought to
have a policy to deal with the problems of drought. Most of the
problems of drought are directly related or going to be
directly related to whatever this phenomenon is of global
warming, the warming of temperatures and the elimination of
snowpack that results from that.
Would you agree that is a big part of the problem which is
leading to this prospect of sustained drought throughout the
West?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, it is very clear that the climate
pattern dictates the long-term precipitation regimes and the
weather features that produce these snows and rains that we
need for our water resources. So as that climate changes, there
will be changes in such things as storm tracks which produce
snow and rain. One of the areas of very intense research is
linking these climate changes to these types of weather
features that will produce your winter snows, the spring and
summer rainfall.
There is a lot of controversy involved in how one goes
about modeling these factors, but there is increasing progress
being made in getting consistent, say, postmortems done over,
let us say, the past 30-40 years in terms of how things have
evolved with respect to what we have been able to observe and
then try to use those same models and project out into the
future.
What we are seeing is that the models are converging
towards a warming atmosphere, especially in the mid latitudes
and up towards the poles. But the effect on the precipitation
is still indeterminate in the sense that there are still wide
variations in the weather patterns within the climate changes.
As our testimony indicates, we are being cautious in how to
extract what we have been able to learn about the use of the
models for temperature forecasts out into the future in terms
of making precipitation forecasts.
One other factor that we are----.
Senator Bingaman. Finish up quickly because I am going to
be out of time before you finish answering that first question.
Dr. Uccellini. We cannot discount the importance of the
oceans and the ocean evolution in terms of what is going to
happen with the climate and respective storm tracks. We are
really just coming to grips with the ocean atmospheric coupling
which we have shown is important for our rainfall and snowfall
over the Western United States, but exactly how to use that and
project into the future is still uncertain at this time.
Senator Bingaman. Let me shift to another issue. Secretary
Raley, I wanted to ask you. The Department's publications,
particularly with regard to Water 2025, constantly mention
Klamath River and the Middle Rio Grande basins as serious
problem areas that you need to deal with. Unfortunately, it
seems to me that your treatment of the two basins is extremely
different.
In the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Department has proposed
a cross-cut budget of $67 million to address problems in the
Klamath Basin, using resources from Reclamation and the USGS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM and the BIA and
even the Park Service. And so you have that cross-cut budget.
In the case of the Middle Rio Grande, as I read what you
are proposing, it is a cut of $9.5 million from Reclamation's
budget for the Middle Rio Grande ESA compliance, leaving only
$5.9 million for fiscal year 2005. And to add salt to the
wound, the Fish and Wildlife Service has eliminated any funding
for the Middle Rio Grande bosque initiative.
Why is it not appropriate to do a cross-cut budget for the
Middle Rio Grande like you do a cross-cut budget for the
Klamath Basin and try to provide adequate funding to actually
do what this 2025 initiative says needs to be done?
Mr. Raley. Senator, you make a point that is quite
appropriate in terms of timing because, as you know, we are
working through the next budget cycle, and I think it would be
entirely appropriate to have, for the next budget cycle, a
cross-cut budget that focuses within the Department on
identifying all opportunities in the Department to deal with
the complex issues in the Middle Rio Grande.
I would suggest one of the issues is we have wanted to be
very respectful in the Middle Rio Grande of local complexities,
and we are waiting for some of the processes that are ongoing,
have been ongoing for some time, to ripen further so that we do
not put ourselves in a place of the Department of the Interior
telling the people of New Mexico what the answer is. As you
know, your constituents have quite diverse opinions, and I
think they are making progress towards finding a common ground,
but more work is yet to be done on the ground.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I can assure you even those who are
jealous of their prerogatives are not offended when resources
are provided, and so I would urge that you look at that again.
Thank you.
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bingaman. Let me also ask about the Ogallala
Aquifer. This is not an issue which I think was dealt with in
any of the testimony. At least, I did not hear it. I have been
concerned for some time about the depletion in the groundwater
in the Ogallala Aquifer, particularly in eastern New Mexico and
west Texas and some of the other States in that area. We passed
legislation through the Senate to provide additional authority
to the Geological Survey to work in cooperation with the States
to map and characterize and model the High Plains Aquifer.
I would ask you, Secretary Raley, is this something that
you in the Department of the Interior could get behind and help
us persuade the House to pass?
Mr. Raley. Senator, this effort is actually something that
I have some nominal experience with, going back to a job I had
in college, which was working out on the ground interviewing
people about declining aquifer rates. I have watched that issue
in the studies over time.
One of the policy issues that we have raised, understanding
that there are very severe consequences in local communities to
the rate of drawdown is what the marginal return is for greater
specificity in the modeling--in other words, what we can
produce--and I have no lack of confidence that the USGS can
always produce yet more models, better models, and provide more
predictive tools.
Given that these decisions, with respect to groundwater
management, are made by the States, we are wondering what the
added value is for yet a better model when, quite frankly, we
understand the trends. We understand what drives the trends of
drawdown for this resource. It tends to be agricultural prices
and energy prices and the profitability of drawing the water.
We are trying to make sure that the money that is spent on this
effort results in information the decision-makers like you can
use, and that is what we are struggling with.
Senator Bingaman. Well, let me give you an example of how
we could use that information here in the Congress. Last
Congress, in the farm bill, we included a provision for an
incentive program for groundwater conservation. We put in there
some funding to assist farmers who would be willing to shift to
more efficient methods of irrigation.
I was going to ask Mr. Gaibler, if you could tell us
whether or not this program is working in your view, whether
this demand for funding is what you expected, if additional
funding is needed, and how many upgrades of irrigation
equipment have occurred? Do you have any kind of report you
could give us on any of that?
Mr. Gaibler. Yes, Senator. We do have some information that
was provided in my testimony that describes various irrigation
measures, management measures, that have been implemented, as
well as installing 15,600 irrigation measures on about 2
million acres of cropland. Through another one of our programs,
the environmental quality incentive program, cost-share
assistance funds have been provided for the establishment of
cover crops and use of conservation tillage to keep wind
erosion under control. Other areas of increased focus of water-
intensive practices such as using drip irrigation and in some
cases trying to provide farmers incentives to produce crops
that have less water-intense use.
As to the specific levels of funding, I would be happy to
provide you more specifics, and further identify if there are
shortfalls where we are not able to meet those demands.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just make one other comment and
then I will stop, since I assume my time is up, although we do
not seem to have a timer operating today.
I do think that if we are going to have good forward-
looking policies adopted at the State level or at the Federal
level or at the local level, with regard to water use out of
these aquifers, we need the best information we can get. This
is one small example of what the Federal Government might be
doing and it possibly could do much better. Clearly the States
and localities could do a better job if they had more reliable
and timely information about the extent of the depletion of
that underground aquifer.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Raley, just quickly on Water 2025.
Obviously, some very good, very positive things coming out of
the administration there, the Challenge Grants program. I am
pleased with the administration's efforts to expand the
management of the invasive plants like the salt cedar and the
Russian olive.
The desire to provide new technology is also exciting, but
there is an aspect of funding that when one looks at it, you
say, well, this is a little bit troublesome here, and this
specifically as it relates to funding desalinization, reuse,
and a few of the other programs. In 2004, it seemed that we
were looking at some increases in funding, but the
administration's 2005 budget clearly has devalued certain of
these programs and eliminates much, if not all, of the previous
year's gains.
So I would ask whether the administration supports the
desalination and other water purification technology
development as a key to one of our long-term solutions, and if
that support is there, why we have seen the decreased support
for the desalination R&D and other programs that would expand
these water supplies.
Mr. Raley. Senator, we are very supportive of Interior's
role as a participant in driving the research for
desalinization as far and as fast as possible. Our
understanding is that the primary factors affecting the
economic viability of desalinization, whether it be sea water
desalinization or brackish groundwater desalinization, which is
also of interest to the Department, given the vast areas, some
of which need clean drinking water, that Interior deals with--
the two drivers are energy costs and disposal costs of the
brine or whatever else that is taken out of the water so that
it is drinkable.
There are gains to be made in technology that we do not
want to look past, but our assessment was that, to be very
blunt, Interior's ability or appropriate role on desal is to
contribute its part with respect to funding the research to
drive it as fast as possible so that the benefits of that could
be shared nationwide and even internationally. People are
interested in these technologies from basically all the
southern coastal States. So Florida is interested. Texas is
interested, clearly California, as well as areas inland.
Given that we have other demands, our intent all along has
been to take what we have, focus it on research, and let other
agencies, some of whom are sitting at this table, take the lead
on other aspects of alternative water supply development, all
of which are great. It is just that Interior cannot be all
things to all people, and it does not have an inherent role or
capability, say, to be the best waste water treatment plant
engineers in the world. That is expertise that is either at the
State and local level or at EPA or elsewhere in the Federal
Government. And we thought it appropriate and most effective to
let them take the lead and that we would focus on the research
side in desalinization, and then within that policy parameter,
we want to stretch people's money as far as we can and spend it
most effectively. That is why the President sends a budget to
you so we can engage on exactly how we achieve that common
goal.
Senator Murkowski. As far as the other goals set out in
Water 2025, are there additional authorities that are needed by
the administration in order for these to be effective?
Mr. Raley. We believe we have adequate authority with
respect to research, although depending on how the research
road map that I believe Senator Domenici had a role in and
others on this committee in having Interior proceed, depending
on the direction that that research road map goes, it may be
possible we would need additional authority in the future. We
think we can continue to play the role that we think is
appropriate for Interior.
Again, there are six to nine agencies in the Government
that deal with desalinization. We do not see desalinization as
one that inherently should or has to be an Interior function.
If it can be done more effectively in the Department of Energy
or by the Department of Defense, we just want the job done and
are not trying to protect a program just because it happens to,
for historic reasons, live within Interior.
Senator Murkowski. Now, I am assuming that Water 2025 will
overlap with the administration's proposed rural water program,
and I am hoping that we have got your commitment that we will
work together to refine these legislative proposals for rural
water and get those worked through.
Mr. Raley. Absolutely, Senator. We have been quite anxious
to get this legislation up to you. We understand that from an
Interior standpoint and obviously from the perspective of
members of your committee, this is an important issue. The
legislation that has been forwarded to you is our attempt to
proceed with this issue from an Interior perspective.
I would note, though, that this is another issue that,
first of all, has got national applicability, and Interior's
water supply role is limited to the 17 Western States. There
are many communities that have an interest in this and Interior
does not necessarily have a role in those areas and probably
should not.
If we were to look for progress in good government, over
time I think that the administration, any administration, is
going to need to engage with the Senate and the House in
figuring out what we as a Nation are going to do about these
rural areas that need drinking water and perhaps rethink this
scattering of something like nine programs that do it to see if
there is an opportunity to do it more effectively. We have just
provided you with our slice of it.
Senator Murkowski. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony
this morning. There are other questions that we have here and
we will submit those to you in writing for your response. I
appreciate your time in joining the committee this morning.
Thank you.
With that, we will call up the second panel, Mr. Craig
Bell, executive director of the Western States Water Council,
and Mr. Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of
American Indians.
Good morning, gentlemen, welcome to the committee. Thank
you for joining us. Mr. Bell, if you would like to proceed with
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG BELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN STATES
WATER COUNCIL
Mr. Bell. Okay, thank you. The council that I represent
consists of representatives appointed by the Governors of 18
Western States. We work closely with the Western Governors
Association, and so we have a vital interest in the subject of
this hearing. In fact, a letter was prepared by the Western
Governors Association to accompany this testimony and is
attached to my written statement. We commend it to you.
We think this is, of course, a very important subject as we
grapple with the conditions of extended drought in the West.
States in the West are the primary managers of water, and so we
show keenly the impacts of the drought and have witnessed
firsthand the extent of the drought over these several years
now.
I remember last year, when we were visiting at a council
meeting in Nevada, we went around the table and talked about
drought conditions, as is our wont these years. The State
engineer from Nevada remarked that things had been so dry in
Nevada that he had 3-year-old fish who had not learned to swim.
[Laughter.]
That sort of summed things up in terms of how things are
going in the West. Similar stories could be reflected.
We find that drought, of course, is not uncommon in the
West. It is sort of the state of affairs from time to time. It
is the nature of things in the West. But this drought, in
particular, is of historic proportions, and part of the reason
is the West has changed since the drought of the 1930's and the
1950's, to which this drought is comparable. The West has grown
significantly. Growth has been phenomenal. It continues. So the
challenges for the West have grown commensurately. The cities
have grown. Rural communities continue to need supplies. So the
challenge has grown tremendously in terms of providing a water
supply, and that of course, is exacerbated when there is a
shortage, when drought occurs.
We have noticed that drought affects virtually every sector
of the economy. The agricultural sector has been hit very
significantly, but also the environment. There have been very
detrimental effects to the environment and to many other areas
of the economy. Virtually everything is dependent on water in
the West, and so you can imagine that virtually every sector
and interest in the West is affected when we do not have enough
water.
What I thought I would focus on today is some of the
effects that are not sometimes discussed. That is, we are
generally aware of the economic impacts. They are in the
billions of dollars and, as I say, attached to every sector of
the economy.
But there are also other kinds of impacts that are not so
easy to quantify. These are exemplified, as this committee
knows, in situations that occurred in the Klamath River basin
and the Middle Rio Grande.
Many will disagree about the factors that led to those
situations. The Endangered Species Act, of course, plays a
significant role. But while people will disagree about the
factors that led to those situations in the Klamath and the
Middle Rio Grande, I think everyone agrees that they were
precipitated in large part by drought conditions, that is,
there was a severe and sustained drought which led to those
conditions in the Klamath and the Middle Rio Grande.
So I guess one of the things I would say is that one of the
things that drought leads to in the West and elsewhere is
conflict among competing uses of water. As I mentioned, cities
have grown tremendously. That growth continues. But also there
have been other kinds of demands that have increased, that is,
demands for instream uses, for fish and wildlife habitat, for
the environment, for aesthetic values. Often those values are
represented by Federal laws.
So one of the things that water managers in the West must
deal with is the integration of Federal and State
responsibilities for water management. That is a difficult task
at best. It becomes more difficult in times of drought. We saw
that in the Klamath and the Middle Rio Grande.
We as the Western States Water Council, consisting of
States, working with the Western Governors Association, have
endeavored to provide a forum where people, State water
managers in particular, could learn to integrate Federal and
State responsibilities, those interests that are reflected in
Federal law, as well as State law, in water in the West. But we
have found that that becomes very difficult during times of
drought. So that is one of the impacts that are sometimes not
identified with respect to drought.
We have some ideas generated about how that might improve.
We, like Assistant Secretary Raley, have found that the Federal
response has been poor in terms of coordination, not because of
their best efforts and intentions, but because of the nature of
their authorities. There is no coordinated system for
addressing drought, and we think that is a need that needs to
be addressed.
We also feel that we need better information. Part of the
problem is that we lack information about vital information
that affects drought, that impacts the West because of drought.
That could be remedied if we could improve those programs that
provide information to western water managers.
Two programs that we would single out are the U.S.
Geological Survey's cooperative water program and the Natural
Resource Conservation Services snow survey program. Both those
programs provide vital information, especially in terms of
drought. And we hope the Congress might give them appropriate
attention as they are asked to make decisions about the budget
for those programs. They are of vital interest to the West.
Lastly, I would commend to the Congress support for passage
of S. 1454, the Drought Preparedness Act of 2003. The letter
from the Governors that you will find is to that effect. We
think that it has much to commend it. We think that would offer
a number of things that would be helpful in preparing for and
responding to drought. It would get us away from this ad hoc,
fragmented approach to drought to a proactive approach that
relies on preparedness as much as response. It would help
deliver more effectively current drought programs at the
Federal level. It would provide new tools for drought planning
and preparedness, relying on existing processes and watershed
councils, and it would also establish a national integrated
drought information system, a bill that would create a vastly
improved drought monitoring and forecasting system.
In other words, in summarizing my statement, I would say
that the drought preparedness bill, as fashioned by members of
this committee and others, would help us not only improve our
ability to respond to emergency conditions but also to manage
water in the West more effectively and efficiently. It would
provide us leverage to deal with this greater problem of water
supply for the future.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig Bell, Executive Director,
Western States Water Council
My name is Craig Bell. I am Executive Director of the Western
States Water Council (the Council). The Council is comprised of
representatives appointed by the governors of eighteen western states.
The Council has been charged with fostering interstate cooperation in
water resources and protecting vital state prerogatives with regard to
the management of water resources in the West. In so doing, we are a
formal affiliate and work closely with the Western Governors'
Association (WGA). Both organizations have followed closely drought
conditions over the past five years, examined the impacts of these
conditions, and have formulated proposals to help the West strengthen
its capacity to cope with such conditions.
In preface to my statement, I wish to join the WGA in commending
the Committee for holding this hearing. As you know, and as the
testimony at this hearing will confirm, the impacts from the drought in
the West--and across the Nation--have been enormous. I further wish to
express appreciation for this invitation to participate at the hearing.
States in the West continue to play the pivotal role with regard to
water management. Given that role, states are acutely aware of the
impacts of the significant drought conditions that have plagued the
West in recent years. These impacts include low water supply
conditions, leaving many localities to request or require water
restrictions, low well levels or dried up wells, widespread record or
near-record low stream flows and dismal snowpack in many parts of the
West, devastating wildfires, and billions in losses to the agricultural
sector, to the environment (endangered species, water quality, soil
erosion/degradation), recreation, tourism, and energy, to name some.
This year has brought some relief, but precipitation has not been
sufficient to ease drought conditions in many core drought areas, where
significant moisture deficits have built up over the past several
years. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, some improvement
through May can be anticipated, and some impacts are likely to ease.
``However, deficient precipitation has impacted much of this region . .
. from the Rockies to the West Coast states . . . for several years
now, and accumulated long-term deficits remain quite large in many
areas, equaling more than a typical year's worth of rainfall in some
places,'' according to the most recent Drought Monitor, an interagency
report (on March 4, 2004). It is important to note that it will likely
take substantial above normal precipitation for an extended period
before the West can recover from the current multi-year drought.
In the arid West drought is not uncommon and significant
fluctuations in water supply are the norm. Nevertheless, the current
drought is of major proportion. Further, the West has changed
significantly since the droughts of the 1930s and 50s, with which the
current drought is comparable. The West is no longer a predominantly
rural area, but the most urbanized in the country. While growth is
occurring throughout the West, much of it is occurring in the West's
urban centers.
In 2000, the estimated population for the seventeen western states,
plus Alaska and Hawaii, stood at over 90 million with accompanying
demands for food, fiber and power. In addition to many rural
communities, cities across the West have entered the new millennium
with an old challenge--finding the water necessary for present and
future uses.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Western States Water, Issue #1338, January 7, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, cities exercise more influence regarding water
allocation, particularly in time of drought. Further, public support
has increased significantly for instream values, water for fish and
wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetic values. Many of these
values are represented by various federal laws which must be considered
as part of the responsibilities of state water managers in allocating
this precious resource. Thus, the job of water managers in the West is
becoming increasingly challenging. This challenge is substantially
exacerbated during times of drought. Water scarcity--in the face of
increasing demands--has led to growing conflicts between and among
different categories of water users. Two examples may be illustrative.
I'm sure everyone here is aware of what happened in the Klamath
River Basin in 2001. Water to the Klamath Project was shut off under
the auspices of the Endangered Species Act, after biological opinions
by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service determined that low water levels in the basin were
threatening endangered sucker fish and threatened Coho salmon. As the
head of the Oregon Water Resources Department said recently: ``While it
may be argued that these [federal] laws just `overlay' but do not
displace state water allocation primacy, there is no question that they
have yet to be seamlessly integrated into state allocation systems and
thus have fueled the conflicts. . . .'' He further categorized the 2001
Klamath Project water supply cut-off as perhaps ``the best example of a
chaotic, inequitable, lose-lose outcome in Oregon. As a result, Klamath
farmers lost water and livelihoods; wildlife refuges lost water and
biological functions; tribes lost support for habitat improvements and
reservation land restoration; government agencies lost credibility and
partnerships; and conservation interests lost support for a species
recovery and the ESA. Time, energy and money were diverted from the
resource restoration mission and needlessly expanded in the combat.''
In Oregon and elsewhere in the West, efforts are being made to
better integrate and coordinate state and federal environmental and
resource management laws. But this challenge is made significantly more
difficult in the presence of drought. While many may argue about the
factors that resulted in the Klamath Project disaster, everyone agrees
that a substantial contributing factor was the drought with about 55%
of normal precipitation.
A federal district court judge in New Mexico likewise ordered
reductions last year in deliveries to traditional water users to
preserve the endangered silvery minnow. While subsequent actions
precluded this action from taking place, it underscored not only the
complexity of the task of integrating federal and state laws relating
to water resource management in the West, but also the impacts of
drought. The Middle Rio Grande had experienced severe drought
conditions leading to the federal judge's unprecedented order. The
merits of that order, as well as other factors associated with efforts
to preserve the habitat of the silvery minnow, have been and will
continue to be debated. However, no one debates that the situation was
precipitated in large part by significant and extended drought
conditions. In this way, drought, in addition to causing direct
economic impacts to various sectors of the economy, exacerbates the
difficulty of efforts to integrate appropriate federal and state
responsibilities throughout the West.
Notwithstanding the difficulty, state water resources agencies have
taken many innovative steps to facilitate the movement of water from
areas of relative abundance to areas where water is more scarce during
times of need. Sometimes such actions have been taken on a temporary
basis, in response to drought or other emergencies, while other changes
in the nature of use have been made permanent. During times of drought,
when surface waters are even more scarce, water users of all types seek
different alternatives. Some can access ground water reserves less
vulnerable to drought in the short term. Some increase conservation
efforts and make do with less or simply must do without. Others may
seek temporary changes in the place or purpose of use. Water moves
between users on both a formal and informal basis. Many users have
found the use of dry-year leases and other legal mechanisms useful in
providing greater certainty during times of drought. Not all states
have access to the same mechanisms. However, states can expedite
permitting of temporary uses, such as wells, and temporary transfers
among or between different users. Where necessary and possible, states
facilitate emergency uses.
Ground water recharge and banking are of growing importance in
leveling out temporal differences in surface water supplies. Water
reuse and desalting technologies are increasing access to previously
unavailable or excessively expensive alternatives. Surface water
storage has long proven its benefit to the West and continues to do so
during these times of drought. Of note, a Western States Water Council
survey of state needs for the Western Water Policy Advisory Commission
in 1996 identified an almost universal need for more water storage.
While the economic and environmental costs of major new surface water
storage dams and reservoirs is often prohibitive, new projects have
been built, sometimes privately, to secure public water supplies.
In this context, the Western States Water Council serves as a forum
for ongoing efforts to try to integrate state water rights law and
administration of that law with federal reserved rights and the
requirements of federal environmental laws. In so doing, the Council
has actively and consistently supported adequate funding for state and
federal water resources related data collection and dissemination
programs. This information is vital and even more important during
drought when decisions regarding the use of available waters are
especially critical. Decision makers remain hobbled by a lack of sound
data in many areas sometimes stumbling towards necessary actions in
response to drought and other instances where water uses must be
balanced with supplies. Many state and local agencies are cooperators
in federal water resources data collection and analysis programs. Two
of particular importance to state water administrators are the U.S.
Geological Survey's Cooperative Water Program and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's Snow Survey Program.
The latter a few years ago was almost in ruins, due to flat federal
funding in the face of ever increasing costs. The Congress, with the
urging of the Council, added a small amount (about $2.5 million) that
went a long way towards rehabilitating aging information collection
infrastructure in order to keep this irreplaceable data available for
myriad water users and decision makers. Still, internal agency budget
restructuring and accounting for federal employees benefits sometimes
threatens adequate continued funding. Similarly, the USGS Cooperative
Water Program and other water programs face continual cost increases
that are sometimes beyond their control and flat federal funding that
has led to a long-term decline in the quantity and quality of data on
streamflows available to decision makers. State and local agencies
under the Coop Program now fund two-thirds of what was once a 50%-50%
federal matching program, and many streamgages have been abandoned,
including irreplaceable gages with over 30-years of continuous data
monitoring, due to increasing costs and a lack of federal funding.
Given the myriad federal and non-federal users of this data the cost-
benefit ratios can be impressive. A study of the NRCS Snow Survey
program in 1979 estimated the cost-benefit ratio to be around 30-1.
Clearly this is a wise investment of federal funds that provides
national benefits, and critical information, particularly during
drought.
Without sound information on snowpack, rainfall, streamflows, soil
moisture, ground water, reservoir levels and other climatological and
hydrological data, decision makers cannot take the most effective
actions in planning, mitigating and responding to drought and its
impacts. Indeed, reliable water data is crucial to all aspects of
decision making, and so we also hope that, as Congress considers the
budget, it will recognize the serious need for adequate and consistent
federal funding to maintain, restore, modernize, and provide for
targeted expansion of NWCC's SNOTEL System and Soil and Climate
Analysis Network (SCAN), and USGS's Cooperative Stream Gaging Program
and National Stream Information Program, with a primary focus on
coordinated data collection and dissemination.
Also, of note, the Western States Water Council is working under
the auspices of the Western Governors' Association with numerous
federal agencies towards a National Integrated Drought Information
System (NIDIS), under a NOAA grant, to make the best use of existing
information and related programs. A draft report is being circulated
for public review and comment. As part of this effort, it has been
recognized that there is no integrated system for the reporting of much
of the information available on drought impacts. Moreover, while there
is considerable data collected on economic impacts, particularly
agricultural impacts, there is less information on the environmental
and social impacts of drought. Much of what has been gathered is
necessarily anecdotal and is generally compiled long after the drought
has passed. The NIDIS effort is looking into ways of better
identifying, assessing and reporting such impacts.
Lastly, despite the enormous impacts of drought, as the attached
Governors' letter notes, ``. . . there still does not exist a permanent
national policy to prepare for and respond to drought disasters. This
lack of a coordinated, integrated federal drought policy causes
confusion at the state and local levels and results in actions being
taken mainly through special legislation and ad hoc measures, rather
than through a systematic and permanent process, as occurs with other
natural disasters that fall under the Stafford Act.''
I therefore wish to reiterate the Council's and the Western
Governors' support for passage of S. 1454, the Drought Preparedness Act
of 2003. The Domenici-Baucus-Bingaman bill would move the country away
from costly ad hoc approaches to drought response in favor of proactive
preparedness, improve delivery of federal drought programs, and provide
new tools for drought preparedness planning, building on existing water
policy and watershed planning processes. Through establishment of the
National Integrated Drought Information System, the bill would create a
vastly improved drought monitoring and forecasting system.
By helping the West, and other parts of the nation, to improve the
ability to prepare for and respond to drought, I believe the benefits
of the Drought Preparedness Act would accrue beyond improved response
to emergency conditions. By helping us mitigate the impacts of drought
though cooperative planning and action, the West would be better
prepared to respond to the ongoing challenges of this arid region. In
other words enacting this legislation would strengthen our capacity
generally to manage water resources for the future, and avoid the
debilitating conflicts exemplified by the situations in the Klamath and
Middle Rio Grande basins.
Thank you again for the invitation. I would be happy to respond to
any questions.
Senator Talent [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bell.
The next witness is Mr. Tex Hall, who is the president of
the National Congress of American Indians. Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF TEX G. HALL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
AMERICAN INDIANS, AND CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, HIDATSA AND ARIKARA
NATION
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan. Thank
you for giving me an opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
I would like to submit my written statement and two NCAI
resolutions for the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The resolutions have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Talent. That would be great.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
It is the National Congress of American Indians position
this morning that water issues threaten the health and future
of Indian tribes, communities, and families across the West,
and in many parts of the country, there is a lack of
cooperation amongst the Federal, State, and tribal governments
over water issues.
It is also our position and my duty as president of this
organization to stand up for the water rights of Indian
country. The drought we know that has gripped the West is a
national problem. We have heard today of the terrible scourge
this has placed upon our western communities and States and
tribes, but if this problem is national in scope, then the
solution must be national in scope as well.
First of all and foremost, I would like to recognize that
water is a sacred right of Indian tribes and an integral part
of our culture, and in establishment of the reservations,
tribes were located along their rivers. So water is necessary
to sustain our life on our reservation communities today,
especially when many of our reservations were established in
the most desolate, remote areas of the Western United States.
So, obviously, if tribes do not have water to sustain their
members and their economies, the land base that was provided to
us becomes basically worthless.
The Federal Government must acknowledge the seniority of
Indian tribes' reserved water rights and that it has a Federal
trust responsibility to ensure that adequate water resources
are maintained for Indian tribes to sustain themselves on
reservations. Federal law needs to impose the highest trust
duties of the highest standards on the United States and
require the United States to take all actions necessary to
protect and maintain Indian water rights. Federal law requires
a measurement and preservation of tribal water rights that will
provide enough water for the present and future homeland needs
of the tribes.
And as we know, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this as
law, and that said, I find it sadly ironic that tribes are now
the most vulnerable group of people due to the drought. This
committee must recognize and ask yourself why is it that
tribes, those with the most superior water rights, are the
first to suffer when drought hits and suffer most in these
times. I cannot help but wonder out loud if this country's
water laws and policies will not make Indian tribes an
endangered species.
Tribes must be placed on an equal footing with the rest of
the Nation. I believe it is time that the United States
recognize tribes' superior rights to water in this country and
fund tribes at levels that will allow them to sustain and
protect our economies and uphold our superior water rights,
enable us to provide safe drinking water for our members that
are enjoyed by many communities surrounding us today.
I would like to briefly tell you about the drought that is
affecting our tribes along the Missouri River basin. The
protection and management of tribal water and land resources in
the Missouri River watershed are among the most critical
priorities facing the 28 Indian tribes within the Missouri
River basin. These tribes are geographically distributed from
headwaters in Montana to the mouth of the Missouri River in
Kansas and Missouri and control more than 15 million acres of
land within this watershed. Despite their proximity to this
great body of water, they feel the effects of the drought.
Especially those tribes located on the upper Missouri River
basin are in danger right now.
Obviously, the drought has a negative impact on our entire
communities for drinking water, for livestock, for crops, but
it also has a negative impact, in turn, on our cold water
fisheries and recreation in these lakes.
We do not feel that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
effectively managing the upper basin lakes, including Lake
Owyhee and Lake Sacagawea during this time of drought. The
Corps is discharging so much water from these lakes, that these
lakes and the reservoir are at their lowest levels in the last
50 years. The low levels of these lakes are critical and are
threatening our drinking water supplies.
In January this year, the town of Parshall, North Dakota,
on the Fort Berthold Reservation had to have an emergency
pipeline built so that they could continue to draw water from
Lake Sacagawea to provide drinking water for that entire
community. A permanent fix is needed and it is estimated that a
permanent fix will cost $3 million to $4 million.
Just last week, the town of Garrison, North Dakota, which
is located right next to Garrison Dam, experienced a water
supply emergency. Full funding for Garrison diversion projects
that allow for continued development of critical municipal,
rural, and industrial water projects on our Indian reservations
is needed badly.
We have not been fully compensated for the effects of six
mainstem dams that were built along the Missouri. So even
though the Dakota Water Resources Act is an authorization act
passed in the year 2000, we are still waiting for adequate
appropriations dollars for our tribe and all of the tribes
along the Missouri basin to fully fund their drinking water
systems to be established, and that will take millions of
dollars.
So the bottom line on this is we feel that legislation
needs to be enacted to protect the drinking water rights of
tribes. We feel this is a human rights issue, that access to
drinking water is not provided for our Indian communities. This
should be the first priority for us.
We can continue on with other regions of the country. In
New Mexico, the Rio Grande, Pueblos being deprived of valuable
water supplies. We could talk about the California tribes, the
Bishop, Big Pine, and Lone Pine Paiute tribes of Owens Valley,
California suffering devastating loss to plant and animal life
and also in the Columbia basin. When nearly 7 percent of tribal
homes continue to lack running water, a figure that is 14 times
higher than the national average, and in the EPA region 9
alone, which encompasses the Western-most Indian tribes, an
estimated 68,000 tribal homes lack access to safe drinking
water. This figure includes the 40 percent of the families on
the Navajo Reservation that must haul or otherwise obtain their
drinking water from unregulated resources. So based on the EPA
needs survey, it is estimated that drinking water system
construction and rehab and upgrades in Indian country are
estimated between $350 million and $500 million.
I realize my time has run out, so I will conclude my
comments and be prepared to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tex G. Hall, President, National Congress of
American Indians and Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Bingaman, and members of the
Committee, thank you for your invitation to testify today on the
devastating impact the Western drought has had on Indian tribes. It is
the NCAI's position that through cooperation and collaboration between
the federal, state, and tribal governments, the impact of the drought
can be alleviated. The most important need we have is for increased
funding that will strengthen the abilities of these governments to
enhance infrastructure and programs, and adhere to well-established
principles of federal law. However, I want to make it very clear that
it is also the position of the NCAI that this funding must not come
from the already dwindling Bureau of Indian Affairs budget or existing
programs.
THE DROUGHT'S IMPACT ON INDIAN TRIBES
Indigenous people have experienced natural drought cycles for
thousands of years. In modern times however, these natural drought
cycles are extremely exacerbated by the inappropriate management of
scarce water resources. As I am sure you are aware, the Indian tribes
of this country are very diverse in culture, geography, and economy. As
such, the drought has impacted the tribes in very different ways. For
agrarian cultures it means reduced farm crops or modifying farming
practices. For fishing cultures it could mean a stressed fishery that
forces tribes to modify their harvests. However, in the case of the
present water crisis, Indian tribes have already altered their
practices to accommodate for the lack of water resources. It has been
through the action or inaction of the federal or state governments that
Indian tribes have been affected. I want to share with you specific
instances of how the Western drought has had a profound impact on
Indian tribes throughout the region.
In northern California, drought has brought out the worst-case
scenario of water allocation at the expense of the Tribal fisheries in
the Klamath Basin. The federal government's water management practices
over the past century have taxed the federally reserved fishing rights
of tribes in the region, culminating in devastating effects on both the
tribes and the surrounding agricultural community. The upper Klamath
Basin historically was an arid region, yet development of irrigation
and reclamation projects have created a non-sustainable situation of
producing crops such as potatoes and alfalfa that require high volumes
of water. Likewise, on the Trinity River, a major tributary to the
Klamath system, water has been exported out of the basin for decades
causing a stressed fishery and over-dependence by agriculture. This
development contributed to the many factors causing the decline of
tribal fisheries and the eventual listing of several fish species on
the federal endangered species list. Drought in 2001 forced the federal
government to curtail irrigation deliveries in order to uphold its
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Political backlash
to this decision in the following drought year contributed to curtailed
river and lake levels resulting in a tragic unprecedented fish kill of
over 35,000 adult salmon. This massive fish kill was devastating to the
Klamath Basin tribes, specifically the Yurok Tribe.
In New Mexico, the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos are being deprived of
valuable water needed to continue traditional farming and related
ceremonies due to the drought. This deprivation not only threatens the
Pueblo economies and social structure, but also the very basis of
traditional Pueblo lifeways. Because the Rio Grande has been seriously
over-engineered with many dams and reservoirs, the federal and state
governments have been required to enforce senior water rights in
accordance with the prior appropriations system. They have had to
resort to this strict enforcement in order to protect the silvery
minnow, which is listed as an endangered species. Despite the Pueblo's
senior water rights, many traditional farming families are not able to
use their lands for subsistence farming because of a lack of available
water. The Pueblos should not be deprived of water at the expense of
the silvery minnow. Under well-established principles of water law, the
federal and state governments must apportion the water based on
seniority. The Pueblos should be the first entity to receive what they
need to continue their existence as self-sustaining subsistence farmers
and carry on their traditional ways of life.
The Bishop, Big Pine, and Lone Pine Tribes of Owens Valley,
California have suffered devastating loss to plant and animal life in
their tribal homelands due to the drought. Owens Valley is on the east
side of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range, which supplies the City of
Los Angeles with approximately 70% of its drinking water which comes
from run-off and groundwater pumping. Last year, the City of Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pumped over 86,000 acre
feet of groundwater from the Owens Valley. This tremendous amount of
groundwater pumping--coupled with current drought conditions--has
resulted in increased adverse impacts on tribes in the Owens Valley.
The tribes in the Owens Valley are in desperate need of financial and
technical resources to monitor the water tables and vegetation status
to ensure that conditions do not further deteriorate.
In Arizona, traditional Hopi farmers are known to grow beautiful,
bountiful crops even in the driest of climates. However, recently, Hopi
tribal farmers have witnessed a dramatic decrease in productivity and
sustainability of their crops. The canyon country of the Colorado
Plateau is currently suffering from one the most severe, prolonged
droughts in history. The drought, coupled with the draining of the
Navajo Aquifer (N-Aquifer), is threatening the ancient farming
traditions of the Hopi people. Also in Arizona, the White Mountain
Apache Tribe has been affected by the wildfires in the White Mountains.
The fires significantly impacted this Tribe's economic viability since
forestry is a major source of revenue for the Tribe.
In my home State of North Dakota and all along the Missouri River
Basin in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, the protection and
management of tribal water and land resources in the Missouri River
watershed are among the most critical priorities facing the twenty-
eight basin Indian tribes. Indian tribes control more than 15 million
acres of land within this watershed, geographically distributed from
the headwaters in Montana to the mouth of the Missouri River in Kansas
and Missouri. Yet despite their proximity to this great body of water,
the Standing Rock reservation ran out of water this year because of
mismanagement of the Missouri River Basin. The drought that has gripped
the northern Plains has given us record breaking high temperatures year
after year, and resulted in a greatly reduced snowpack in the Northern
Rockies that drastically reduces stream flows all along the Missouri
River. North Dakota has been operating under a Drought Emergency
Proclamation issued by Governor Hoeven since 2002. The drought directly
impacts tribal members' livestock, crops, and is threatening the health
of the cold water fisheries in Lake Sacagawea. In January, the town of
Parshall on the Fort Berthold Reservation had to have an emergency
pipeline built just so they could continue to draw water from Lake
Sacagawea, but will need a permanent fix that will cost $3 to $4
million dollars.
Despite historical and legal rights to the water, Missouri River
Basin tribes have been excluded from the benefits of the Missouri River
water resources and its tributaries. Twenty-three percent of the
1,499,759 acres taken for the construction of the dams and reservoirs
under the Pick-Sloan plan were Tribal lands. More than 350 families--
1,700 from my Tribe alone--were relocated because of the flooding
caused by the Garrison Dam. Although the federal government promised
irrigation development and participation in electricity generation over
fifty years ago when these lands were taken, the Tribes are only now
beginning to receive some of these benefits. The Mandan, Hidatsa &
Arikara Nation never received the 20,000 kilowatts of free power we
were promised nor did the United States ever rebuild the hospital we
lost, a promise that was made over 50 years ago. My grandfather was
Vice Chairman and present at the signing of agreement in 1948 that took
away our lands so I have a strong personal commitment to seeing that
the United States honors its word. The flooding caused by the Dam took
away so much. It was more than just the land--it was the language, it
was the culture, it was the history. It was more than just a simple
flooding. Although our reservation was promised $70 million in water
development projects, my tribal members still must haul their drinking
water. We now estimate it will take $86 million to provide adequate
drinking water throughout the reservation, but funding when it comes
seems like it is only a few dollars at a time.
The tribes seek meaningful participation in resource management
within the Missouri River Basin, but lack the resources to do so. Our
tribes' natural resource and water resource offices depend on
discretionary funding from federal agencies for maintenance of their
operations. Like most tribal programs throughout Indian country, they
derive the bulk of this funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
other governmental agencies, with annual funding priorities mandated by
Congress. The tribes are vulnerable to annual fluctuations in federal
funding, which inhibit long-term planning. Congress should also
appropriate full funding for Garrison Diversion projects that allow for
the continued development of critical municipal, rural and industrial
(MR&I) water projects on our Indian Reservations.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
Federal law requires a measurement of tribal water rights that will
provide enough water for the present and future homeland needs of
Indian tribes. The United States Supreme Court has long held that
federal Indian reservations were set aside as permanent homelands for
Indian people to live upon in a self-sustaining fashion into the
indefinite future, with enough water reserved for tribal use now and
for all the future generations.
In the landmark case of Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564
(1908), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress by creating
the Indian reservation, impliedly reserved ``all of the waters of the
river necessary for the purposes for which the reservation was
created.'' Winters, 207 U.S. at 576. The Court further declared that
this reservation of water was not only for the present needs of the
tribe, but ``for a use which would be necessarily continued through the
years.'' Winters, 207 U.S. at 577.
This principle outlined in Winters is now well-established in
federal water rights jurisprudence: the United States, in establishing
Indian or other federal reservations, impliedly reserves enough water
to fulfill the purpose of each federal reservation, including the
residential, economic development, and governmental needs of Indian
tribes. See Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 599-601 (1963),
Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976); United States v.
New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 700 (1978); In re The General Adjudication of
All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System and Source, 35 P.3d 68
(2001). Importantly, this type of federal reserved water right is
``superior to the rights of future appropriators.'' Cappaert, 426 U.S.
at 138.
Not only must the federal government acknowledge the seniority of
Indian tribes' reserved water right, it also has a trust responsibility
to ensure that water resources are maintained for the Indian tribes.
Federal law imposes trust duties of the highest standard on the United
States that require the Department of Interior to take all actions
necessary to protect and maintain Indian water rights. The United
States Supreme Court has long held that, as Indian tribes' trustee, the
United States must act to ``preserve and maintain trust assets,'' using
``reasonable care and skill to preserve trust property.'' United States
v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 123 S.Ct. 1126, 1133-34 (2003). See
also United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983). These trust duties
require protection in circumstances such as ours where ``water rights
constitute the trust property'' which the federal government has the
duty to preserve by performing ``all acts necessary.'' Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 417, 426 (1991). Failure to
comply with these federal trust duties will result in a monetary award
against the United States for breach of trust.
As the Supreme Court recently explained, the United States' federal
trust duties are substantial when the United States exercises direct
control over tribal trust assets on a daily basis. In such
circumstances, ``a fiduciary actually administering trust property may
not allow it to fall into ruin on his watch.'' White Mountain Apache,
123 S.Ct. 1126, 1133. Since the Department of Interior has direct
control over the manner in which tribal water resources are maintained,
utilized, and managed, it is the Secretary's responsibility to protect
tribal use of those waters. Additionally, she has the trust obligation
to take the affirmative steps necessary to settle and permanently
protect tribal water rights in a comprehensive manner. In all of the
examples that I gave you of how Indian tribes are affected due to the
Western drought, in every instance, the federal government has had the
duty and obligation to protect the Tribe's interest and ensure use for
future generations. In these examples, the federal government has
breached that duty by allowing diversion of water for non-Indian and
commercial use, apportioning the water to protect an endangered
species, not consulting with the affected tribes, and neglecting to
adequately fund the tribal environmental programs needed to ensure
healthy, sustainable communities.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Nearly 7% of tribal homes continue to lack running water, a figure
that is 14 times higher than the national average. In EPA Region 9
alone, which encompasses the westernmost Indian tribes, an estimated
68,000 tribal homes lack access to safe drinking water (including 40%
of the families on the Navajo Nation that must haul or otherwise obtain
their drinking water from unregulated sources), and there is only a 50%
certainty that a tap turned on in a tribal home will consistently
produce water in compliance with bacteriological monitoring and testing
requirements. Based on the EPA Needs Survey, it is estimated that
drinking water system construction and rehabilitation and upgrade needs
in Indian Country have been estimated to be approximately $350-$550
million.
Lack of funding for operations and maintenance for the continuing
health and welfare of the tribal public water system is also a major
concern for Indian tribes. The Western drought puts pressure on
resources available to public water systems, thus implicating the
funding for tribal water infrastructure needs. Routine water quality
monitoring and operation and maintenance activities are absolutely
essential to ensure the continued safety of drinking water in Indian
country. Additionally, the absence of financial, managerial, and
technical capacity often results in violations of the Safe Drinking
Water Act and puts the public health at risk.
New federal requirements for drinking water protection, solid waste
control, non-point source pollution abatement, and hazardous waste have
affected Indian reservations. Tribes have been charged with
implementing these legislative regulations and rules with inadequate
federal funding. The tribes stand ready to take the lead in the
development of these codes and regulations, but need the critical
skills to carry out these programs pursuant to federal laws. Such
skills include sound technical capabilities and administration, policy,
and managerial skills.
SOLUTIONS--THE ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENTS ACT AS AN EXAMPLE
Under well-established principles of federal water law, Indian
tribes hold senior, federally reserved water rights that must be
fulfilled before water is allocated to junior users such as
municipalities and non-Indian farmers. These rights must be
acknowledged and adhered to by the federal and state governments. One
way of acknowledging these rights is by entering into settlement with
willing Indian tribes in order to have water claims finally
adjudicated. These adjudications will also clear up the confusion
surrounding the delivery of water during times of drought in the
future.
The Arizona Water Settlements Act is pending before your Committee
to resolve permanently the water rights claims of the Gila River Indian
Community. As you are aware, the quantification of rights to water and
development of facilities needed to use tribal water supplies in an
effective manner is essential to the development of viable Indian
reservation economies, particularly in arid western States.
Importantly, S. 437 recognizes the need to find sources of funding for
Indian water settlements, and the construction of tribal water delivery
systems authorized by those settlements, outside of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. In S. 437, the payments made by the State of Arizona to
meet its repayment obligations to the federal government for the
construction of the Central Arizona Project are deposited into the
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. The money will be made
available directly from the Fund to tribal settlement costs, both those
authorized in the bill and others such as those of the Hopi and other
Arizona tribes that have not yet been enacted by Congress. This
distribution will not be associated with the annual Congressional
appropriations process and will not come from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs budget. NCAI supports, as you do, creative approaches to
funding Indian water settlements to allow Indian water settlements to
be funded and bring certainty to water rights in western states without
diluting the availability of much-needed BIA funds for critical Indian
programs.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of NCAI, I would like to thank the members of this
Committee for the opportunity to testify on how the drought has
affected the Indian tribes of the West. Like federal, state, and local
entities, many Indian tribes have been adversely affected by the
drought. It is the NCAI's position that the impact of the drought can
be decreased by providing more funding for tribal water infrastructure.
Also, there is a need for an increase of funding for tribal, state and
federal governmental agencies to ensure that the federal government's
trust obligation is fulfilled even during these times of crisis.
Settlement of tribal water claims such as the Arizona Water Claims
Settlement Act are critical to creating and sustaining viable economies
in Indian country and eliminating uncertainty of water apportionment
during times of drought. Finally, any new funding should come from new
sources and not from the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
Lastly, the notice I received concerning this hearing was very
short and I have only given you examples of the effect of the drought
on tribes that were able to respond on such short notice. I know there
are other tribes that are suffering from the drought. It is my
understanding that this Committee will have additional hearings on this
subject and I would appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
again to provide additional input to this Committee on tribes' view of
the drought and water management in the West.
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Of course, your
statement is in the record, and we appreciate your being here.
We appreciate both the witnesses very much.
And I will recognize Senator Dorgan for any statement or
questions he may have.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Talent, thank you very much. I have
been attending a Commerce Committee markup all morning, so I
was only just now able to arrive here.
Let me thank Mr. Bell for being here, and especially let me
thank Tex Hall. We in North Dakota are very proud of his
leadership. He is the National Chairman of the Congress of
American Indians.
Mr. Hall, let me ask you a series of questions.
First of all, let me ask consent to put my opening
statement in the record.
Senator Talent. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Byron L. Dorgan, U.S. Senator
From North Dakota
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very timely hearing on a
topic of great importance: water supplies in the arid West. This is a
subject on which I have been spending a great deal of time, because
drought, and all of its repercussions, has hit hard in North Dakota.
We have had a water supply crisis in my state. Over the last year,
due to drought conditions and the mismanagement of the reservoirs on
the Missouri River, North Dakota has experienced severe water shortage
problems. Last October, I became aware that the City of Parshall was
facing the prospects of losing its water supply if something was not
immediately done to extend its water intake pipes. Then, in November,
Ft. Yates actually lost their water supply when lake levels became too
low to supply critical water needs.
These experiences have shown there is an immediate and serious need
to evaluate and address our water infrastructure needs in rural areas
of our country. Notwithstanding what was done on behalf of these towns
to mitigate the impact of their loss, the fact is these losses could
have been avoided. The Army Corps of Engineers was well-aware of the
adverse consequences that would result when lake levels reached a
certain point.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important
topic. I am particularly pleased that Chairman Tex Hall is here today,
and we appreciate his making the effort to come to appear before the
Committee. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing.
Senator Dorgan. Chairman Hall, do you have people on your
reservation that are now hauling water?
Mr. Hall. Unfortunately, Senator Dorgan, we do. We feel
between 20 to 25 percent of all tribal residents on Fort
Berthold are currently hauling water. I myself, as tribal
Chairman, am supposed to be considered one of the people that
should not have to, but I haul drinking water every day.
Our water is of such poor quality, and the sanitation
conditions many times are really challenging, especially when
you are hauling water in the back of a pickup truck for those
hundreds of families that are on Fort Berthold.
Senator Dorgan. And that is much more vulnerable to
contamination when you are hauling water, as opposed to having
water in a closed system in which the water is treated?
The reason I ask you that question is that I have sat with
families on reservations particularly who describe the day-to-
day requirement to haul water. People forget about this and
what it means when you are actually having to go find a pickup
truck or a truck and put water in a tank and haul it to your
storage facility on your premises. Then the question of taking
a shower or using water in your daily activities is an entirely
different question because then you have to be concerned about
how much water do you have, how much must you conserve, in
addition to the issue of contamination.
I am surprised by the percentage you described to me. I
despair at that percentage because that is a lot of families
who cannot take for granted that which we take for granted
every single day. Water comes out of a tap. You turn on the
faucet and you get water. But having to haul water is an
enormous problem for a lot of families and we really need to
find a way to address that and fix that. I know that you are
working hard to do it.
Do you want to comment more on that subject?
Mr. Hall. Senator Dorgan, I would like to add the Indian
country faces a higher rate of diabetes, a 7 times higher rate
of diabetes than the national average. So as we are looking to
dialysize patients, these same patients that we are looking for
cleanliness when they get on a chair and hooked to become
dialysized, those same principles are not practiced at home
because they have, in many situations, unclean water and
unhealthy water.
So lack of access to quality drinking water we feel is not
going to turn around the negative impacts of diabetes. So our
tribe and many tribes have actually declared a war on diabetes,
but part of that war has to have access to quality, treated
drinking water to help our people become healthy. That is
something that is not going to turn around unless we can turn
around access to treated drinking water.
Senator Dorgan. This may not be a great place to be talking
about the management of the Missouri River because the Senator
on my right lives downstream.
Senator Talent. I was hoping, Senator, the subject would
not come up until you had left, and then I could rant and rave
on behalf of Missouri.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. So anticipating his ranting and raving, let
me get in front of it just a bit. Mr. Hall, have you taken a
look at the proposed management of the Missouri River? The new,
revised management program that the Corps of Engineers has
recently released? They have talked about revising the master
manual for 12\1/2\ or 13 years. They finally, after 12\1/2\ or
13 years, produced this product, which is horribly deficient in
my judgment. Have you had a chance to look at it?
Mr. Hall. Yes, I have, Senator Dorgan, and we feel it does
not protect the rights and the issues of a higher lake level
for tribes to have access to those water systems. If we were to
look at a chart in the Bureau of Reclamation--our tribal water
directors could provide that--of all of our communities that
are located--of course, indigenously our people always lived by
the river, and so now communities are by the river. So when
that lake level drops--and of course, we do not believe the new
master manual addresses that issue--there are going to be
entire communities without water, as we have seen with Standing
Rock and Fort Yates, an entire community without water and now
Garrison without water.
The solutions are temporary and that does not address the
permanent need to fix these, but part of the solution has to be
to provide more water in the upper basin in order for us to use
the lake and use the river like we always have, since the
beginning of time and before the Army Corps of Engineers
managed the lake. So we do not think it really addresses our
concerns.
There will be more money spent on the back end trying to
fix crises instead of trying to fix it on the front end. So I
agree that the manual is deficient and we are going to have
more families and more communities entirely without water that
is going to cost a lot more money later on.
Senator Dorgan. Well, the revised manual is really almost
irrelevant. It does not really make any substantive changes
that addresses the upstream States' interests, in my judgment.
I guess I am probably not very surprised by that, but I am very
disappointed in it.
What has been the economic consequences to your tribe in
North Dakota, the three affiliated tribes, with respect to
recreation and tourism and all the other things that relate to
the loss of boat ramps and the declining level of the
reservoir?
Mr. Hall. It is in the millions, Senator Dorgan. Of course,
the lake and the river are right between our million-acre
reservation, as you know. In western North Dakota, we are very
rural and we depend on recreation and fishing. Last summer--and
it is not going to get any better for this year and for next
year and the year after that. The majority of recreation sites
have lost access with their boat ramps because of the droppage.
So we are scrambling now to find the ramp that would be
most cheaply fixed to make an adjustment to have access to the
water because if you do not, the fishing industry is going to
dry up, and that is a multi-million dollar industry for our
reservation and for the entire State, as you know. So that
really has a potentially devastating effect on our economy.
People will not come to the hotels. They will not come to the
stores, and there is going to be a huge loss of industry and
local businesses are simply going to go out of business and go
bankrupt.
Senator Dorgan. There is less water in the Missouri River
system. There is less snowpack and going to be less coming into
the system again this year. We understand when the Corps of
Engineers says we have to make do with less and therefore the
reservoirs are drawn down. But that is a question that is
separate from how you manage the river and how much you release
from the reservoirs. My own view is that the Corps of Engineers
has fumbled this miserably.
In North Dakota, as you know, Chairman Hall, over 7,000-
8,000 citizens on the Fort Yates Reservation during
Thanksgiving week lost their supply of water. Parshall would
have lost its water last month, in the month of February, were
the intake not extended by the Bureau or had it not been
extended.
So we have some very significant challenges. One can hope
that we get through this drought period and see more water
enter the system, but even when that happens, we still need a
reasonable management scheme for the Missouri River system.
Your reservation is a very large reservation geographically
and it is intersected by the reservoir and the river system. My
father, when he was a young man, herded horses and lived in
Elbow Woods, North Dakota. Elbow Woods no longer exists. Elbow
Woods is under a reservoir, so it is a town that is now gone.
From that experience, the members of your tribe especially,
but others as well, have been displaced, moved to higher
ground. Their diets changed. They developed diabetes. I held a
hearing on your reservation and the rate of diabetes on your
reservation is 12 times--not double, triple, or quadruple--12
times the national average. It is devastating. As you said, the
issue of water and the requirement to haul water is completely
counter to what we need to be doing to address the health needs
of those with diabetes.
So your testimony is very helpful, Chairman Hall, and again
we are very proud of your national leadership. We have a lot to
do not just on this committee but on the Indian Affairs
Committee, on which I serve, and also the Interior Subcommittee
of Appropriations where we actually appropriate the money for
all of these Indian programs. I think your leadership is going
to be instrumental in our trying to address these in as
thoughtful a way as we can.
Did you have any other comments about the Missouri River
system? I know that you have consulted the chairman of the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe with respect to their intake issues
as well.
Mr. Hall. Senator Dorgan, thank you for the question, for
the follow-up. I would just like to say it is the first time I
have heard of the Department of the Interior's plan for Water
2025, and I have not heard tribes mentioned in 2025. The
Department of the Interior should know they have a trust
responsibility to tribes. That land is held in trust and
because of the treaty obligations and the allotments from the
Dawes Act in 1887 and the Winters doctrine of water rights
established in 1932, they clearly have a trust responsibility.
It disturbs me that we are not mentioned in Water 2025.
So I would also further ask the committee that tribes need
to be involved if there are further hearings down the road to
make sure that our issues are being addressed in this proposed
Water 2025 or any Federal policies regarding water issues.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just say on that point we have had
this dispute with the Corps and others about Indian water
rights. You have Indian water rights that exist. They are not
quantified and they should be, but they nonetheless exist. I do
not think there is great debate about that. It is not
sufficient for the Corps simply to say that we consulted
because they told you what they were doing, and that is too
often the case. There needs to be full consultation with
respect to tribes because those tribes have inherent water
rights that exist in law. They are not, in my judgment,
negotiable. They currently exist and I think the Corps has not
done the tribes justice by their failure to consult the way
they should have been consulting along the way.
So these discussions will continue as well. I know that you
and the National Congress and others will be actively involved
in them, and really, you must because we have discovered the
Corps of Engineers tends to move in its own direction and it is
pretty impervious and oblivious to other interests from time to
time. We try here in Congress to give it a huge, swift kick on
occasion and it seems to have almost no impact at all.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. When we have a flood, they are great flood
fighters and God bless them for that. But on issues like
management of the Missouri River system, shame on them for
taking 13 years and then coming up with such a miserable
product. We will have more to say.
Now, because I have to go somewhere else, I am not able to
hear the comments from my distinguished colleague from Missouri
on the Missouri River system.
We must, it seems to me, all of us, find a way to address
these issues, and addressing them includes addressing the
rights of Indian country as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for being patient.
Senator Talent. Well, I sure thank the Senator, and as
usual, he has argued his case with a vigor and an eloquence
worthy of a better cause I may say, but certainly well done.
Senator Dorgan. Wait until I leave to say those things.
[Laughter.]
Senator Talent. Let me get a couple of housekeeping details
out of the way, and I want to ask Mr. Bell about the rural
water bill, get his opinion on that.
The record will remain open for statements and questions
for any of the witnesses until close of business tomorrow and
all documents should be directed to the committee staff.
Mr. Bell, we would like to know if you have reviewed the
current rural water bills currently before the committee. Do
you have any comments on the current Federal programs, how well
they are meeting rural community needs in Western States, and
do you have any changes or improvements you want to suggest
either to the bill or to current programs?
Mr. Bell. We do not have a position on the current bill. I
will say, however, that we do have a consensus about greater
need for meeting rural water supply needs. There is a consensus
among the States that we need to do more as a country. We took
a survey in connection with the study done by the Western Water
Policy Review Advisory Commission, and many of our States were
concerned about the situation in our rural communities. So we
are very supportive of the concept at least of providing
sufficient water for our rural communities. We recognize the
need.
Senator Talent. If you have anything more specific you
would like to offer in writing, the committee would be glad to
have it.
Mr. Bell. Thank you.
Senator Talent. I appreciated very much the testimony of
both the witnesses. Mr. Bell, if I can sum up yours, what I
hear you saying is that we need to fund information collection.
We have got to know where we are with water resources and water
quality.
Mr. Bell. Indeed.
Senator Talent. This is a problem, by the way, in Missouri,
particularly in southwest Missouri. Missouri is an interesting
State because it is like five States all coming together in
one. The whole country meets in the middle of Missouri.
Southeast Missouri and southwest Missouri are different, St.
Louis, Kansas City. And southwest Missouri is very much like a
Western State in terms of water issues. We have real supply
issues there. So we certainly sympathize with what the Western
States have been going through.
One of the things that we are trying to do is to get a
handle on just what the situation is in the aquifers, what
water quality issues are, and there is not enough good
information. And that is a problem all through the West.
Mr. Bell. I agree. I certainly do.
Senator Talent. Certainly, Mr. Hall, feel free to offer
comments on any of this.
We have got to get the right information. We have got to
begin emphasizing preparedness rather than ad hoc responses. I
think we are all in agreement with that too.
And we need to find a way to develop an integrated approach
rather than waiting until there is a crisis and then the States
and localities all go off on their own trying to catch as catch
can. That is going to be hard because it is going to mean--and
we are all jealous of what we have got because we are worried
about losing that, and agreeing to an integrated approach
raises at least a specter that maybe we will not have as much
control over what we have got.
That is really the problem with the Missouri River. In
Missouri, we are concerned about a number of things flooding in
the spring because we have so much good farmland right around
the river, but we are also concerned about navigation. We have
gone from 3 million commercial tons of navigation in 1980 to
1.3 million in 1990 to a little over 1 million last year. And
this is bad for everybody because barge traffic is often the
cheapest and certainly the environmentally most safe way of
getting product to market.
I mention this because when I hear from my friends in the
West on the river, it is impossible to deny the validity of the
interests that you are representing. I mean, safe drinking
water, tourism. Tourism, along with agriculture and
agribusiness, is the biggest part of Missouri's economy. So we
are all sort of fighting over this water and we all need it.
That is why it bothers those of us in Missouri when we feel
valuable interests are being sacrificed not necessarily on
behalf of upstream economic interests, but in order to protect,
let us say, the pallid sturgeon or the least tern when the
science regarding that, on top of everything else, is very
dubious. You can understand I think at least how we feel about
that because it is one thing to say, well, no, we have to
reserve it for the economic interests upstream, but it is
another thing to have a court coming in, sequeing in and
grabbing it on behalf of that particular interest. And this is
the integrated approach you mentioned where we all get around a
table and balance these interests.
So I felt I needed to say that since Senator Dorgan raised
that issue.
I really do not have a lot to add. Do you all have any
further comments you want to make on that issue or any other? I
will let you get the last word in. Well, maybe not on the
Missouri River, but anything else.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Senator Talent. I agree with a lot of
what you said. It does need to happen and, Mr. Bell, we do need
to have that integrated approach, but tribes need to be at the
table because of our rights to the water and to the river. Our
main concern is drinking water, access to that drinking water
and protecting our rights in that regard.
On tourism, though, I will----.
Senator Talent. Let me say, Mr. Hall, in terms of hauling
water, my mom was raised on a dairy farm in Jefferson County,
Missouri and was a big gardener her whole life. She always had
a big vegetable garden. And she hauled water when she was a
girl. And when my brother and I would complain----.
Mr. Hall. Good for her.
Senator Talent. I mean, she told us what it was like, and
when my brother and I would complain about having to haul the
hoses out and spend some time watering her vegetable garden,
she would give us a lecture about what it was like when she was
a girl hauling that water. So I do not know from personal
experience, but I know that it is difficult. The water is not
as safe, and boy, if you have not hauled water, you do not know
what it entails. So I can sympathize.
Please go ahead.
Mr. Hall. I was just going to say that I appreciate your
story about your mother because my father had an eighth grade
education, but I say he had a Ph.D. in just everyday smarts.
But he told me, make sure you go to college because I do not
want you to come back and be a cattle rancher like me and have
to haul water. I went to college. I came back. I am a cattle
rancher and I still haul water. He told me I would be a damn
fool.
Senator Talent. My mom was German. She used to say we grow
too soon old and too late ``schmart.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. I will be in your home State on I believe Sunday,
the 13th of March, on the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
Senator Talent. Yes.
Mr. Hall. So I will be there to help lobby an ad for your
tourism issues and to bring attention to the historic Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial Trail of Discovery, 200 years ago.
Senator Talent. And maybe in the spirit of Lewis and Clark,
which all of us along the river can take pride in, that
expedition, maybe we can come together on some of these water
issues.
The larger issue on this information, Mr. Bell, that you
raised, I increasingly have faith that technology and
innovation, if we understand a problem well enough, will dig us
out from under a fair amount of it if we know what the
situation is and will honestly look at it. So this is it, here
are our alternatives with technology, and if everybody can be
at that table, we may be able to get our way out of a lot of
this.
Mr. Bell. Yes. I have found so many circumstances where
technology and innovation have helped us greatly in terms of
these kinds of problems.
Senator Talent. Yes. Well, I am grateful for your
testimony. It has been a good hearing. Certainly you all know
that the committee, whatever Senators' particular interests may
be, wants to make certain that there is enough water available
for everybody in the Western States, as well as the Midwestern
States, if I may say so. So we are grateful that you are here
today.
I have already given the announcement about further
submissions for the record, so the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is greatly interested in
the issue of the future of water supplies in the West. We are pleased
to submit this statement for the hearing record.
Water is the scarcest and most important resource in the Western
United States. It is vitally important to the farmers and ranchers who
settled the West and who provide food and fiber for the country and the
world. Agricultural production depends on the timely availability of
water supplies. For example, 75 percent of the total value of
Colorado's $1.3 billion in agricultural crop production comes from
irrigation. New Mexico produces $2.2 billion annually in agricultural
products and agriculturally-related industries employ more than 47,000
people statewide.
Furthermore, the economies of most rural communities in the West
are built around farm and ranch activities. No water means no local
food production further eroding the economic base of many of these
communities. Since the earliest days of Western settlement, a system of
state-based water rights laws have been developed to meet the
particular needs of the arid Western states and their growing
populations. AFBF supports this system that has served the needs of
this rapidly developing area while preserving water resources for a
large and productive agricultural economy. State water laws have
provided an orderly system for allocation of scarce water supplies.
State water laws and the availability of water for the production
of food and fiber have come under attack in the West. The fastest
growing area in the country, western cities and municipalities, are
increasing their demands for available water. Activist organizations
are using the courts to apply federal statutes such as the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act to effect a re-allocation of scarce
water supplies away from the holders of legitimate water rights
pursuant to state water law to listed species and to instream water
flows. All this is occurring in a prolonged drought that has left
western reservoirs at record low levels.
Farming and ranching are crucial if the character of the West is to
be maintained. Western farmers and ranchers not only provide food and
fiber for the world, but they provide many other benefits as well.
Often, the only thing standing between open spaces and urban sprawl is
agriculture.
In 2001 over 1,400 farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin area
of Oregon and California had their irrigation water shut off and were
deprived of a crop and their water used instead for two endangered
fish. A similar situation was experienced on a smaller scale in New
Mexico in the Middle Rio Grande River area near Albuquerque when the
Bureau of Reclamation was required to use irrigation water for the
silvery minnow.
1. WATER 2025
To address these issues and to try and prevent similar situations
from occurring, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) began an
initiative it calls ``Water 2025.'' The purpose of the initiative is to
anticipate potential ``hot spots'' such as Klamath and New Mexico that
are likely to occur in the next 20 years and plan strategies to avoid
them.
Water 2025 is a comprehensive, well thought out blueprint for
helping agriculture, industries, municipalities and wildlife to meet
their water needs for years to come. AFBF and affected state Farm
Bureaus have had significant involvement with the DOI on Water 2025.
Water 2025 contains a lot of points that AFBF agrees with. For
example, we support the policy of seeking new innovative technologies
such as desalination for increasing the supply of water available to
westerners. It is extremely important that this technology be made
affordable for the West.
We also support the apparent thrust of the initiative to preserve
state water rights laws and to respect private property rights. Water
is a resource that is under the jurisdiction of state law. As
previously mentioned the western states have developed a process for
the adjudication of water rights within the state that has served water
users well for many years. It is appropriate that any solutions to
water shortage issues currently facing the West should be addressed at
the state level.
We also support efforts to make water use more efficient.
Agriculture is doing its part. Every five years the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) publishes a report of water use in the United States; the
last report is from 1995. Irrigation application rates vary from year
to year depending upon rainfall, surface water availability, energy
costs, commodity prices, application technologies and conservation
practices. According to the USGS, the average amount of water applied
per acre for irrigation was 2.1 acre-feet, a drop from the 1980 average
of 2.5 acre-feet. The amount of irrigated acres in the United States is
58 million. Irrigated acreage, according to the USGS report, is
increasing in the Eastern United States and declining in the West.
Irrigated acres in the 19 Western states have declined due to urban
development and the sale of irrigation water rights to municipal water
suppliers.
We further support the encouragement of local solutions to local
water issues. Involvement at the local level by affected parties is
critical to the development of any workable water plan. ``One-size-
fits-all'' solutions are not the answer.
Voluntary, temporary, market based water banks hold some promise to
create solutions to temporary water shortages in particular areas. Such
programs must be voluntary, not result in the permanent loss of water
rights, and be market based.
A puzzling and glaring omission from the suggestions made in Water
2025 is the issue of additional water storage. Farm Bureau strongly
believes that increased water storage is essential in order to solve
many of the water issues in the West. Demand for water continues to
increase and the rising demand cannot be met without additional
supplies.
States such as Colorado and Montana are headwater states, meaning
that their water generally runs through rivers and streams to other
states. Colorado, for example, is entitled to the use of more water
than it is currently able to capture. Additional storage is vital for
Colorado to meet the rising demand from Denver and its environments.
Additional water storage will not only allow for states to meet the
needs of their residents, but it will provide a measure of certainty in
times of drought. New storage facilities will bring water supplies to
areas that need it most. Additional storage can occur in non-intrusive
ways and could mean new dams and reservoirs, adding a foot to existing
reservoirs in order to increase capacity or underground water storage.
We urge the committee to consider additional storage as a possible
solution to the water crisis in the arid west.
Another issue that in theory sounds good, but has some practicality
concerns is making canals and delivery systems more efficient. For
example, lining canals would result in less water being lost allowing
for more water to be available for other uses. The practical
application is not that easy. Water return flows resulting from such
leakage is very important for agriculture. Additional water rights are
derived from return flows, and many farms, ranches and other
enterprises depend on such return flows. Making canals impervious to
water loss will decrease these return flows, causing economic harm to a
lot of farmers, ranchers and others.
Many rivers and streams across the West are lined with salt cedar
or other water draining vegetation. One salt cedar, for example, can
consume upwards of 200 gallons per day. These plants spread rapidly,
drying up rivers and streams. We are pleased that the DOI and
Department of Agriculture have embarked on an aggressive campaign to
remove salt cedar from western waterways. A successful control program
will not only make more water available, but will also address an
invasive species problem.
2. MISSOURI RIVER WATER FLOWS
Agriculture needs the continuing operation of the Missouri River
for the purposes of flood control, navigation, irrigation and
hydropower production. Management of the Missouri river must recognize
and support these objectives. Agriculture is a major land use activity
in the Missouri River basin. Farm Bureau policy encourages the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to protect agricultural land use by
providing flood control for the 1.4 million acres of productive
farmland at risk from Missouri River flooding. We are opposed to a
spring rise on the Missouri River and believe that the Corps can
achieve species protection without putting farmland and other property
at risk. Flows must also be managed so that land drainage patterns are
not disrupted in order for spring planting to occur on time while soil
moisture and temperature can be managed for effective crop production.
The Corps must also continue the hydropower generation necessary for
rural towns and businesses and maintain navigation on the river for the
commercial shipping of farm inputs and production outputs.
The contributions of the Missouri River to the Mississippi River
are critical for maintaining the flows necessary for continuous
navigation for commercial shipping. Over 60 percent of U.S. grain
exports use the Mississippi River to efficiently reach foreign markets
in a cost competitive manner. Flows must be maintained throughout the
navigation season to ensure that barge traffic is not halted due to low
water conditions.
We believe that the Corps should maintain the current Master Water
Control Manual and not deviate from those standards and policies.
Western water issues are challenging and complex. However, they are
also critical to farmers and ranchers and the rural economies that
depend on their success. Solutions to these issues are not easy. Any
solutions must include and preserve a strong and vital agricultural
base.
We appreciate the Committee's concerns and interest in these
issues, and we look forward to working with the Committee on solutions
that will benefit everyone.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
United States Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, DC, March 31, 2004.
Hon. Pete Domenici
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) responses to questions for the
record relating to the Committee's March 9, 2004 hearing regarding
water issues in the arid West.
Please feel free to contact me should you require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Debbie Larson,
Director.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Does NOAA engage in longer-term climatic predictions
for periods of years or decades?
Answer. Currently, NOAA does not issue operational seasonal climate
forecasts beyond 13 months, nor drought outlooks beyond a season.
However, NOAA does have an active program in climate research and
modeling at its Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and its Climate
Diagnostics Center that is directed at extending prediction
capabilities decades in advance, as well as improving those
capabilities. As scientific advances are confirmed, these improved
capabilities in annual to decadal-forecasts will be transferred to the
National Weather Service's National Centers for Environmental
Prediction for improved operational forecasts of climate variability.
Question 2. What is NOAA's impression of the tree-ring and other
long-term climatic record data in terms of helping us understand and
predict long-term droughts?
Answer. Tree ring and other long-term climate records provide an
understanding of climate fluctuations over the past several thousand
years, including some insight into the magnitude, duration, and
location of droughts. These records suggest that ``mega'' droughts are
a natural fluctuation of climate. The challenge is to understand and be
able to model the origins of these droughts in order to assess the
likelihood of future occurrences.
Question 3. What do we need to do to expand the time horizon of our
weather and climate prediction capability?
Answer. To expand the time horizon of weather and climate
prediction requires: 1) a global observation network which includes
observations for ocean, land, atmosphere, snow, and ice, 2) additional
supercomputing capabilities which would allow the research and
operational meteorological communities to assimilate the global data
into numerical models and to simulate the interaction of ocean,
atmosphere and land processes in order to predict climate variability,
and 3) research that leads to a better understanding of climate
variability--past, present, and future.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Climate Change--The GAO notes in a July 2003 report
that the potential effects of climate change ``create uncertainty about
future water availability and use.'' Last month the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory issued a report based on a new climate change model
that predicted a change in precipitation patterns that would play havoc
with the West's agriculture, fisheries and hydropower industry.
Answer. The report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is
consistent with previous research in indicating the strong likelihood
of a warmer climate, which in turn will lead to more rain (instead of
snow) in the west. The net result is less total snow pack and,
consequently, earlier spring runoffs. However, caution should be used
when interpreting these model results, given the uncertainty inherent
within long-term model simulations, especially in the prediction of
precipitation patterns.
Question 2. Has your organization done any in-depth modeling of the
effects of climate change on precipitation patterns? If not, what has
been the focus of your research related to climate prediction models?`
Does the President's Climate Change Research Initiative provide for any
in-depth research and modeling of the impacts of climate change on
precipitation patterns in the United States? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, NOAH continues to conduct in-depth research and
related modeling of the effects of climate change on precipitation
patterns. NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and
Climate Diagnostic Center (CDC) have worked together and with other
external researchers to assess the impacts of climate change on
precipitation. NOAA also has pioneered seasonal climate forecasting and
continues to be an international leader in this area with a strong
focus on water cycle/drought monitoring and forecasting. The research
results to date generally point to a greater uncertainty in the
precipitation patterns related to climate change than we see in the
temperature patterns. The Administration's Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) has a specific focus for reducing the uncertainty in
projections of future climate and the relationship to precipitation
patterns over the United States. The main modeling efforts in the
United States that support the CCRI are at NOAA's GFDL and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), whose primary sponsor is the
National Science Foundation.
Question From Senator Dorgan
Question 1. What do you see as the outlook for drought in the Upper
Great Plains?
Answer. The seasonal outlook through June calls for improvement in
the Upper Great Plains, including Minnesota, North Dakota, and eastern
parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, and Montana. Some improvement (with
drought ongoing) is called for in western portions of Nebraska and
central and southwestern South Dakota. Because there are no strong
forecast signals that point to either a wet or dry upcoming season, our
predictions are largely based on average precipitation levels and
average temperatures. Our prediction of limited improvement in these
western areas is based on this area's experiencing greater
precipitation deficits in the past than the eastern portions. These
precipitation deficits in western areas will be hard to overcome as
most of the precipitation that may fall will be absorbed by the parched
soil. As examples of the magnitude of the precipitation deficits from
past years, deficits since March 2001 exceed 12 inches in central South
Dakota and parts of Nebraska.
______
Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, April 6, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici: Thank you for inviting the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) to provide testimony on water issues in the arid
West. In your letter of March 16, 2004, you asked that we respond to
three questions submitted for the record. The questions address three
issues: first, the Corps' capability and authority related to rural
water supply; second, how the Corps is addressing specific community
needs in the Missouri River Basin, and, finally, the Corps' authority
to provide emergency response to drought. Our response to each question
follows.
Question 1. Does the Army Corps feel that they have capability,
competence, and/or authority to contribute to solving rural community
water supply issues, in the west and if so how? Does the Corps role for
rural communities change for eastern communities?
Answer. The Corps has the technical capability and competence to
contribute to solving rural community water supply issues. However,
this is not considered part of our core mission, and the degree of our
participation is somewhat limited by current legislative policies and
authorities. The legal authorities and programs through which the Corps
is able to help address water supply issues vary by location and all
require that certain conditions of non-Federal participation are met.
This limits the Corps' ability to respond in a consistent manner to
regional or national water supply issues. Our ability to respond to a
community's needs, to some extent, depends on the location of the
community. In terms of large-scale programmatic efforts, the Corps does
not have a current role.
We have worked with our many military customers to design and
construct water supply, delivery, and sewerage facilities at military
bases throughout the West. In the civil works arena, we have both
planning and design capabilities at a number of our district offices,
skills that can be leveraged to serve any location in the nation
because of our regional business center concepts. In managing our
reservoirs to supplement water supplies, we are in partnership with
many agencies and non-governmental organizations, sharing technology
advances in modeling and maximizing use of our scarce natural
resources, including water supply and water quality, which go hand in
hand.
There are several existing authorities and programs through which
the Corps is able to help address water supply issues. Each has
specific conditions, application, and limitations. They are: 1) Civil
Works program (multi-purpose vs. single purpose projects); 2) Water-
Related Environmental Infrastructure Authorities (site specific); 3)
Reservoir reallocations (or deviations from water control plans); 4)
Planning Assistance to the States; and 5) Emergencies. Items 1 through
4 are explained in the following paragraphs. The final item,
Emergencies, is explained in response to Question 3.
Civil Works Program. Under current guidance, Section 301 of the
Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 390b, the Corps may only
include water storage for present or future municipal or industrial
water supply as an added feature to a project that has other outputs,
such as a flood control project. Water quality and water supply
projects are not currently considered primary project outputs. When
water supply outputs are included in projects, the additional water
storage cost is borne by the beneficiary. The Corps currently does not
have general authority to carry out a single-purpose water quality and
water supply project; nor does the Corps currently have a general
authority vested in the Secretary to carry out wastewater
infrastructure projects, wastewater reclamation projects, or water
supply infrastructure projects, even if the Secretary determines that
such a project is in the public interest; produces general water
quality, environmental, and public health and safety benefits; and is
cost effective.
Water-Related Environmental Infrastructure Authorities. The Corps'
standing authorities to contribute to solving water supply issues are
limited to certain specified localities, States, or regions. For
example, the Corps may provide design and construction assistance for
environmental infrastructure including wastewater treatment facilities,
and water supply, storage, treatment and distribution facilities, to
designated localities with funds that are appropriated in accordance
with Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992,
Public Law 102-580, as amended. The 1999 WRDA, Public Law 106-53, as
amended, contains similar regional authorities such as Section 593,
which is applicable to projects in central New Mexico and Section 595,
which is applicable to projects in rural Nevada, Montana, Idaho, rural
Utah, and New Mexico. Existing authorities vary from State to State, in
their scope, and to some extent, in the credit granted. The existing
authorities are being expanded by Congress to include new geographic
areas, as evidenced by the recent expansion of Section 219 authority in
Northern California and Section 595 authority to include rural Utah and
New Mexico and proposed similar legislation for southern Colorado and
west Texas. We are utilizing these authorities in the West to construct
water related facilities as appropriated funds become available.
Reservoir reallocations. In the West, one common method to help
regions deal with water shortages is to supplement the recharge of the
groundwater basins through use of existing reservoir projects, either
through the water control plan, through implementation of the drought
contingency plan, or through temporary deviation from the approved
water control plan on a short-term basis. Example benefits are
reflected in annual recharge of over $15 million dollars worth of
surface water to the aquifers of southern California. However, as such
activities are only undertaken to the extent permitted by our current
statutory authorities, the Corps' ability to fully implement this
concept is limited;
Planning Assistance to the States. One of the Corps' programs that
many smaller communities take advantage of to help solve water supply
issues is the program known as Planning Assistance to the States. In
this program, the Corps can study a wide range of water resource issues
under the general recommendations of the State water resources
department. These cost-shared studies constitute technical assistance
and do not result in construction, but provide an excellent start to
helping local communities analyze their specific resource challenges,
including that of water supply. Over the past few years, funding for
this program has been exceeded by demand.
Question 2. I am extremely frustrated by the Federal Government's
actions, or lack thereof, relating to the Missouri River. The people of
the Missouri River Basin have been waiting since 1989 for a resolution
regarding the Master Manual. But now the latest action from the Corps
has yet to offer a permanent solution for communities facing water
shortage. What are you going to do to address the needs of communities
like Fort Yates and Parshall?
Answer. On March 19, 2004, the Corps of Engineers released its
Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the
operation of the Missouri River dams and reservoirs, the new Master
Water Control Manual and the final 2004 Annual Operating Plan. While
these documents do not specifically address solutions for communities
facing water shortages, we are continuing to closely monitor the
Parshall, North Dakota situation and will help develop the necessary
plans to deal with the temporary water intake based upon the projected
lake levels. The Corps is working closely with the Bureau of
Reclamation, which is the lead agency for resolution of the Fort Yates,
North Dakota intake issue.
Question 3. Over the past few months, we have had in North Dakota
what I will call a water supply crisis. The drought has been so
devastating that water actually had to be cut off to one of our
communities. Other communities have been threatened with the same
outcome. What authorities does the Corps of Engineers have to provide
emergency response to drought? Do these authorities need to be
expanded?
Answer. The Corps may provide temporary emergency water assistance
for human consumption or usage to a drought distressed area to meet
minimum public health and welfare requirements under the authority of
Public Law 84-99, as amended, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 701 n. This authority is
temporary in nature, and assistance is supplemental to State and local
efforts. Currently, it does not appear necessary to expand this
emergency authority.
In conclusion, the Corps knows that water is our most precious
natural resource. We recognize the growing rural water supply
challenges but have very limited authority to address these challenges.
The Corps is available to contribute to solutions consistent with these
authorities and administration policy.
Thomas F. Caver, Jr., P.E.,
Deputy Director of Civil Works.